Vol.6 No.3 2014
42/56

Research paper : Measurement of input resources for standardization activities in basic research and applied and development research, and the difference of the measuring results between the research types (S. TAMURA)−175−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.6 No.3 (2013) Interpreting Innovation Data, 3rd Edition, OECD, Paris (2005).AuthorSuguru TAMURAJoined the Ministry of International Trade and Industry, and worked at the Technology Evaluation and Research Division, Industrial Science and Technology Policy and Environment Bureau, and at the Council for Science and Technology Policy, Cabinet Office. Associate Professor of the Faculty of Science and Engineering, Waseda University from 2009 to 2012. Senior Fellow of the Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI) from 2012. Main accomplishments include publication in the Journal of the American Ceramic Society and others. Research topics include the innovation management and the R&D evaluation method. In this paper, Tamura was in charge of all contents.Discussions with Reviewers1 Point that the measurement was not done for the whole standardization activities, but was limited to the standardization activities within IP activitiesComment (Hiroo Matsuda, International Standards Promotion Division, AIST)You mention as your research goal is “to consider the method for measuring standardization activities.” However, you only considered the numerical fluctuation (stability?) of the standardization activity survey in the “Results of the Survey of Intellectual Property-Related Activities” conducted by the Japan Patent Office (JPO), and concluded that the hypothesis is adequate. Since the result of this JPO survey is an important “element” for the synthesis of this paper, I think you need deeper consideration for adequacy. Looking at the details, in the basic research that was the subject of this paper, the percentage of the standardization personnel in FY 2011 was reduced to half compared to the past fiscal years. You mention this in subchapter 5.1 but do not offer consideration of the fluctuation in the survey method.Answer (Suguru Tamura)I described that the reason for the reduction in 2011 was due to the replacement of companies that were subjects of the survey, as this was not a panel survey. For the reliability of data, I added the reasons that the recovery of the questionnaire data was about 50 % and the response on standardization was provided in 90 % of the recovered questionnaires. These two points were given as reasons that the sampling bias could be eliminated and the data could be considered reliable. (5 Result; 5.1 Number of IP activity personnel and the number of standardization activity personnel in IP activities; 5.2 Comparison of data over the years by industrial category)2 Reliability of dataComment (Mitsuru Tanaka, AIST)Your discussion relies greatly on an evaluation index based on the fact it uses the basic data from the statistics of the Japanese IP activities. In particular, you address the comprehensible nature of the data based solely on the fact that the data is public data. For the readers who are not familiar with data reliability, they will be skeptical of how to view the changes from 2008 to 2011, or have trouble in understanding the comparison of basic and applied and development researches. I recommend you to supplement the explanations for such readers.Answer (Suguru Tamura)I explained that because the rate of response to the questionnaire was about 50 %, and because the percentage of response to the question related to this research was 90 % among the recovered questionnaire, it was possible to eliminate the bias in response. It can be concluded that the reliability of data is high. In ordinary questionnaire survey, though it depends on the situation, the reliability of a data source is thought to be high if there is 20 % to 30 % response. For the conclusion, I added the point that we cannot deny that a certain level of standardization activities related to IP activities is present in the basic research field. (5 Result; 5.1 Number of IP activity personnel and the number of standardization activity personnel in IP activity; 6 Discussion; 6.1 Verification of the hypothesis; 6.2 Comparison among the research fields; 8 Conclusion)3 Description of the importance of definition for standardizationQuestion (Mitsuru Tanaka)In relation to your description, “the verification method of the hypothesis that the new definition for standardization is adequate,” I wonder if the fact, “…It was possible to collect data that captured the wide range of standardization activities that included back office work and planning, as well as the negotiation for establishing the standard” is critically essential for the new definition. It looks quite obvious that “taking up a wide range of items for standardization activity provides” makes the definition clear with “more accurate index.” Instead of picking up specific examples for broader items, you should provide a simple discussion on the support of the scope of items for standardization. Or, is the main point of this paper, “one can obtain data” because there is stability? I recommend you to clarify this point.Answer (Suguru Tamura)I have added that the definition was matched to the patent activities for which surveys have already been done, and that the count of the standardization activity personnel was almost the same as the count of the negotiator. Also, I added the description on the reflective disadvantage such counting method may bring forth. No quantification of the standardization activities has ever been done using the expanded definition, so I indicated that, the fact that data can be collected is meaningful. In a sociological survey, unlike the measurements using measuring devices as done in natural sciences, there are many cases where responses may not be obtained in a questionnaire survey. (6 Discussion; 6.1 Verification of the hypothesis; and 6.2 Comparison among research fields)4 Verification of the hypothesis on the standardization trend in basic researchQuestion (Mitsuru Tanaka)Quantitative study is presented on the contribution of basic research to standardization compared with that of applied and development research. However, the reliability of the process of the study has to be explained taking into account the applied evaluation index and the definition of standardization. Since the evaluation index will be no more than one of the consequences of assumed contributions of basic research, the author will be allowed to explain his own speculation explaining the difference in the contributions of the two different research fields, which is of great interest to the readers.

元のページ 

page 42

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