Vol.5 No.1 2012
70/82

Report : Synthesiology through knowledge integration to innovation−67−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.5 No.1 (2012) “This is useful information because we can understand the researches of many fields.”To solve the issues of the present society, it is important to establish the methodology of the “science of synthesis” and to practice it. I believe innovation can be accelerated through the “science of synthesis.”[Special Lecture] Innovation and synthesiology – How knowledge creation and restructuring can be useful in converting the social values and strengthening the industrial competitiveness– Ken Senoh(The Industry Academia Collaboration Initiative NPO; Hitotsubashi University [The University of Tokyo on the day of this workshop])First, I would like to discuss “synthesiology seen from two systems theories’ view,” then “synthesiology seen from innovation studies,” and finally “how knowledge creation and restructuring contribute to converting social values and strengthening industrial competitiveness”I shall review the systems theories. The systemic systems theory based on the phenomenological interpretation is, in that sense, British rather than American. When we approach a subject, there are four ways: 1) daily life approach, 2) scientific approach, 3) hard systems approach, and 4) soft systems approach. In daily life, we “wait and see” through our “preconception,” or the framework based on various existing worldviews or Weltanschauungen and unexamined assumptions. To this, we add the approach based on “scientific thinking.” This is represented by the three Rs: analysis based on “reductionism,” adaptation to the world with “repeatability,” and the factual expression of the result or, in Popper’s term, to enunciate by “refutation.” This can be called scientific knowledge when it is synthesized as “knowledge.” The success of this methodology is apparent as evidenced from the world of science in the 19th and 20th century. However, we reached the limit of it. Why? It’s because reductionism cannot get the knowledge of “wholeness” or “systemicity.” The practical, managerial, or political actions is not repeatable due to human learning. Hence, the general systems theory such as of Bertalanffy appeared. The systems theory focuses on “relationships of elements,” rather than looking at certain parts in a reductionistic manner. The systems theory was led by the engineering approach that assumed that the existing world was composed of “systems,” and therefore it could be approached systematically. With the influence of the World War II, this hard systems concept dominated the scene. This methodology developed as system engineering (SE), operational research (OR), system analysis (SA), and management science (MS). Meanwhile, the soft systems concept developed in the 1980s mainly in England. Unlike the hard systems concept where the hypothesis verification is done assuming that the “world is composed of a set of systems,” this is a paradigm that takes the approach of systemic exploratory learning assuming that “although the world can be seen as a system, the world is unknown.” While the hard systems view is based on logical positivism that involves the hypothesis verification through ontological statement, the soft systems view is based on phenomenological and interpretationism centering on the exploratory learning through epistemological statement. It is characterized particularly by the social semantics and conceptualism for understanding a human action can be regarded as various systems.What would happen when Synthesiology is seen from this perspective? I think there are two perspectives. First, there can be a paradigm of rationalization and emergence against the thinking of whether synthesiology engages in analysis or synthesis. Second, there are the three aspects of “logy.” Does synthesiology seek statements by ontology, epistemology, or methodology? I think there are all three aspects to synthesiology.Since we place emphasis on “emergence,” the important concept is “correlation.” In “correlation,” the social phenomena are interpreted and recognized as emergences, but there is a need of the methodology for practice that enables the emergence of new social phenomena. I think there are the following six ways: 1) to replace the individual that composes the system that enables emergence, 2) to change the correlationship of the individual that composes the system, 3) to cause a new combination by design, 4) to cause a new combination by induction, 5) to discover and nurture new combinations through place and opportunity, and 6) to practice exploratory learning that causes emergence by directly being involved in the place and opportunity.Next is “synthesiology seen from innovation.”When talking about innovation, I stress that “growth” and “development” should be separated. Growth is a quantitative expansion of / in the same model, while development means the non-successive transfer to a new model. What promotes growth is the improvement by polishing the current state, while innovation means the new creation of a model. I am saddened that the Nihon Keizai Shimbun still translates “innovation” as gijutsu kakushin (technological renewal), but no matter how much improvement is done, it is only a part of innovation. Innovation is a creation of social / industrial new value(s), so it does not necessary start with technology invention. Or invention needs to have further parts: conversion and diffusion. Innovation does not last long. It is impossible to win the industrial competition without ceaseless effort in innovation. In my innovation theory in terms of industrial competition, the improvement model and the new creation model must be clearly separated

元のページ 

page 70

※このページを正しく表示するにはFlashPlayer10.2以上が必要です