Vol.7 No.4 2015

Research paper : New research trends in artifactology (J. OTA et al.)−208−Synthesiology - English edition Vol.7 No.4 (2015) Nariaki NISHINOReceived B.E. (1999) and M.E. (2001) in mechanical engineering from Kobe University, received Ph.D. in precision engineering from The University of Tokyo (2004). Postdoctoral fellow (2004-2005), Assistant Professor (2006-2009), Co-creation Engineering Research Division, Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering (RACE), The University of Tokyo. Currently Associate Professor, Department of Technology Innovation, School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo. He is engaged in studies of artifact design considering aspects of social systems with the method of experimental economics and agent-based simulation. His research interests include game theory, mechanism design, network externality, management of technology, and product service systems. He is also active in collaborative research on decision-making problems with manufacturing and service industries in Japan. In this article, he contributed to a part of the methodology concerning socialization technology and explanation about the concrete theme.Tatsunori HARAReceived B.E. (2004) in system innovation, M.E. (2006) and Ph.D (2009) in precision engineering from the University of Tokyo. Assistant Professor (2009-2011), Department of Precision Engineering, School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo. Currently Associate Professor, Human-Artifactology Division, Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering (RACE), the University of Tokyo. His research interests include serviceology, service engineering, service design, product service systems, and tourism informatics. He has been working on development of a service CAD system called Service Explorer, which is a main deliverable of service engineering division in Phase of RACE. In this article, he contributed to a part of the methodology concerning modeling of individual and explanation about the concrete theme.Toyohisa FUJITADirector of Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering, also Professor of Department of Systems Innovation, Graduate School of Engineering, the University of Tokyo. Was Professor, Akita University (1995-2003). Was President, Resources Processing Society of Japan, (2005-2009), President, the Research Forum on the Recycling Technology of Rare Metals from 2014. Themes of his research are recycling technology, mineral processing, environmental purification and preparation of intelligent fluids with nanotechnology. Received 30 awards from different kinds of societies. Also he has over 400 publications and submitted over 60 patents. He has contributed to the discussion on the total concept and direction in this paper.Discussions with Reviewers1 Overall contentComment (Masaaki Mochimaru: Center for Service Research, AIST)I understand that this article proposes a research framework centering on the discussion at the Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering at the University of Tokyo, which performs a central role in the establishment of an artifactology framework and shaping of the methodology and direction in its further development, and outlines some examples of research activity based on this framework. Artifactology and Synthesiology share the same root, and the objectives of artifactology match the scope of the Synthesiology journal. I therefore think that the discussion of the research framework proposed in this article is useful for the readers of this journal, too. However, I feel that the present composition does not form a paper on “new issues in artifactology and a new research framework for tackling these,” but rather is “an introduction of Phase III at the Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering, the University of Tokyo.” As the formation of an “artifactology research framework” is the ultimate target this article must aim for, perhaps you could develop the argument for that.Answer (Jun Ota)Thank you for your valuable comment. I agree that the paper should be written more from a perspective of the development of artifactology rather than of the Research into Artifacts, Center for Engineering, the University of Tokyo. I have changed the structure in accordance with your suggestion.2 The relation between Phase II and Phase IIIQuestion (Motoyuki Akamatsu: Human Technology Research Institute, AIST)The article explains the two divisions for socio-artifactology and human-artifactology that were established in Phase III, but although it mentions that both are “based on activities in Phase II,” the relation between Phases II and III is not clearly explained. I would like the hypothesis formation process that deemed the initiative necessary to be described, e.g., why were multi-stakeholder problems or problems in searching for a solution where the problem specification is incomplete not handled by life cycle engineering or co-creation engineering; or did it surface as an important issue in the practicing of life cycle engineering and co-creation engineering?Answer (Jun Ota)Phase II produced many research outcomes for design science based on physical science. In Phase III, we develop this to include the humanities/social sciences as subjects of study and also consider anything involved in human society. Against this background, we discuss socialization technology problems in connection with class III problems, as proposed by Professor Kanji Ueda. This problem was not sufficiently dealt with head-on in Phase II, but as our mission in Phase III is to solve a number of real-world problems and it is extremely important, we aim to deal with this problem and also systemize the problem-solving method. As the link between the outcomes for Phase II and Phase III was unclear, we have rewritten both descriptions to better reflect the difference. For instance, the description has been changed to make the outcome for the Value Creation Initiative Division the human sense of values. A concrete summary of Phase II outcomes has also been added (e.g., design of artifacts that take resource constraints and waste into consideration, and technology for a large-scale complex simulation base).Regarding modeling of individuals, this was also dealt with in Phase II, but the main outcome was modeling of individual differences. As changes in the state of individuals, i.e., dynamics,


page 12