Vol.4 No.1 2011

72/78

Report : Methodology of technology integration toward establishing an open innovation hub−69−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.4 No.1 (2011) Ways of selecting and combining the successful elements and universalizing themAudienceI think the discussion is drifting into the particulars. The selection and combination of the elements of the “synthesis in Synthesiology” discussed by Dr. Kobayashi is very important. You talk about aufheben, breakthrough, and strategic selection types, but which would survive? In the Theory of Inventive Problem Solving (TRIZ), or as Dr. Kikuya Ichikawa who wrote the Sozo Kogaku (Creative Engineering) says, there is a pattern in the evolution of technology, and those that do not follow the pattern fail. I want Synthesiology to mark out the thought process toward success. Since we are doing things in a bottom-up style, I’ve been a bit concerned. I think we can start from a hypothesis.KobayashiOur goal was to get there, but currently we don’t have enough accumulation of case studies. There is interpretation involved in the consideration for synthesizing technology, and I think hypothesis is included in the selection and combination. Also, it could be seen from the analysis so far that the cycle must be turned until the final implementation in society.SuzukiIn Synthesiology Vol. 1 No. 2, the interview of Professor Richard Lester by Dr. Kobayashi was very interesting. Professor Lester mentions that not only analysis but also interpretation is important in “innovation”. Innovations occur as many things are adeptly interpreted, but he also says that innovation does not occur by interpreting alone. Innovation must be made by striking the balance of analytical and interpretive areas. I think this is where Synthesiology can be powerful, and I am hopeful.OnoI think the comment from the audience presents a lofty ideal. We also purport the ideal, but Synthesiology as a journal is rather a framework or forum for discussion and presentation of opinions. There are two objectives with Synthesiology. One is that while pure basic research has been established as the methodology for science, we do not know what exactly constitutes originality for the applied and integrated research, and there is no method for seeing whether a certain result is true. I think Synthesiology is a forum to address such issues. That is the first objective. The second objective is for people in various technological fields to present and exchange strategies and integration methods. People can show each other what has not been established with an integrated research or discipline, and seek solutions in a bottom-up style. Synthesiology provides chances for such discussions, so please submit papers of your thoughts. It’s like an advertisement for the journal, but that is what we would like to do.To create an environment for thinking about “why” and to overcome the barriersAudienceMany people indicate the problem of education as the cause of not being able to think “why”. After World War II, the Japanese were educated to work hard on the problems that were laid before their eyes. That was fine during the era of catching up (to the United States and Europe), but that does not work now. What should we do?Another point; considering the “why”, I think to get a breakthrough, we must do things by trial and error, but if one wants to do something in Japan today, there is always some barrier or regulation. There are so many things that can be learned from failure, but we can never say “I failed”. Do you have any suggestions for overcoming such barriers?SuzukiIf there were answers to those questions, I would certainly like to hear them. There is a book by Mark Stefik called Breakthrough. I translated it. Stefik states “the researches we need now are ‘radical researches’”. The basic research until now was a study of a given research subject, the solution was sought, and one thought of how to overcome a barrier when he/she encountered it. In application research, when one came against a barrier when attempting to realize something, the product was completed by taking a different method that bypassed the barrier. In radical research, if one encounters a problem, the problem is studied as a subject, and the knowledge will expand although the research subject may change. I think it is necessary to solve the problem by introducing other technologies and fields as well as social technology.As for the suggestion for overcoming a barrier when considering the “why”, it is perhaps a bad habit of the Japanese to enter from the “how”. I think Synthesiology will be an interesting place or “Ba” that may provide a chance to see the “why” once again. I hope people will take advantage of this place.AkamatsuWe are thinking of various methodologies for utilizing research in society, and are working to establish synthesiology as one of the ways. Please continue to support our efforts.

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer9以上が必要です