Collaboration "Digital Camera" of NISTEP
(March 2005 - April 2006)
Date, Place, Division:
10/April.2006, NISTEP-MEXT, STFC
Participating Person 1
NAME: CAVASIN Nathalie
INSTITUTION: Waseda University, Global Information and Telecommunication Institute
ADDRESS:
TEL:
FAX:
EMAIL: n_cavasin@yahoo.co.jp
Participating Person 2
NAME & INSTITUTION: TATSUNO Kimio (Senior Fellow)
INSTITUTION: STFC -NISTEP
ADDRESS: 2-5-1, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, zip 100-0005 JAPAN
TEL: 81-(0) 3-3581-0605
FAX: 81-81-(0)3-3503-3996
EMAIL: tatsuno@nistep.go.jp
Participating Person 3
NAME & INSTITUTION: HAMADA Shingo (Affiliated Fellow)
INSTITUTION: STFC -NISTEP
ADDRESS: 2-5-1, Marunouchi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, zip 100-0005 JAPAN
TEL: 81-(0) 3-3581-0605
FAX: 81-81-(0)3-3503-3996
EMAIL: hamada@nistep.go.jp
Objective and theme :
Resuming the "JSAP conference of Optics and Digital Camera Strategy" held at 23/March.2006, Musashi Institute of Technology. To see the perspective and the capability to develop the research collaboration.
Documents to be consulted :
A powerpoint presentation slides given by Dr. Cavasin. Session recorded in voice recorder for almost of all the invited speakers. Video recorded for the 30 minutes of the session of Dr. Cavasin.
The summary description of the objective (in half page) :
According to the last research meeting of 10. April. 2006, the participating person 3 is trying to give a brief resume for the collaboration outside of NISTEP, concerning the "Digitale Camera and Innovation"
Feedback dialog for the conference resume 23.March.2006
- How do you relate the critical mass of 2003 (in page 9) to the hypothetical market evolution (page 26) ?
= For the point 1: according to me in the future a new type of product will be on the market: smaller, thinner and lined to telecom network. Also the Digital still camera will be produced in others asian countries not in Japan anymore I think.
- My suggestion back grounded of this question is following : It seems to me that the critical Mass of 2003 is caused by the market saturation in one hand, the balance between the product mature and users' needs and capacity (to buy and catch up the new products). But in other hand, inside of this critical mass, the usage of the digital camera as is pronounced in the hypothesis (page 26) is not clearly structured. If once the critical mass has happened to be there, when will it be the recovery of consumer's catch-up to the new products ? When will it be realized the hypothetical market evolution after the recovery of market catch-up, as is pronounced ? These questions are related to the perspective thinking for giving a solution to the critical mass (page 9) and market evolution (page 26). And further more, this critical mass has any sense on the market evolution outside of Japan, for example in China and Asia ? Before talking about the obvious manufacture transfer from Japan to Asia, I would like to imagine how it can be foresighted as an emerging market evolution and technology transfer (Chinese consumer can really profit this product mature ? and if yes, how ? )
- How do you relate the history of camera in France (in page 31-34) to the nowadays R&D system represented by Prof. Berge's VariOptic ? What kind of lessons does it give to the audience ?
= For point 2: France has no camera maker but has an optic industry. Second, Berge background and freedom to choose research topic and do research freely without strong directive from hierarchy. Berge had also a good budget research for all his research that he could have all the equipments necessary to do this one. Lesson to the audience: a very good research environment from all points of view and creativity are the 2 keys for survival.
- I agree with your point, especially on your insight into the background and personal motivation of Prof. Berge. It is possible to relate his internal experience to the invention of VariOptics. I'm also interested why in France the camera assembly manufacture has not developed so much, compared to Germany and USA. My hypothesis to this, is the incapability to catch-up to the Product Knowledge Innovation (Taylor's scientific product management) in the 1990-1920, although the user development of photography has much advanced in France and a small part of optics research industry remains always after a declining period of optical manufacture. This is particular point of French technology and society, as is seen also in the case of super computer usage.
- How do you propose the perspective of Business Model Change (in page 20), or paradigm shif as mentioned, starting from your view of Ecosystem of Digital Imaging (in page 40-41) ?
= For point 3: the model I draw is in the early stage and need improvement with further research.
- My suggestion is following : Ecosystem of Digital Imaging is the typical aspect of our "Information Society". It has happened and matured in Japan. It is true. Beyond this society change, I see the two points : one is the stagnation of the information society because of the people's way of thinking is limited in the socio-cultural factors but not in the technological one. And another is drastic change probably with no rational reason coming from outside of society, for example, massive and radical change affected by Chinese consumers. Ecosystem as you mention is a kind of equilibrated system, but in order to maintain those system, one should propose something for leading the change, and it should be the Business Model. And I see for this, some kind of value added market assessment, and this should be initiated by Japanese market, because she is the only who knows the maturity of market. I imagine for example, the photo-contest (or the photo-blog) in China supported by the camera manufacture, related to the Tourism or social exploration. If it is related to the sociological, anthropological or ethnical aspects, the researcher of SSH can propose many things for the criteria. This is my point of view on the Business Model.
- otherwise, I suggest you the aspect of user participating development, in the area of "technology and design (photographism)", "culture and technology (blog etc)" for University-Industry collaboration, which is very typical in modern research & study.
= For point 4: yes I agree.
- This is exactly the point I introduced to you at the last meeting of 10/April, the Leonard movement implemented in MIT and its competing equivalent program OLATS in France . Please see the attached reference written in Japanese distributed at the meeting. And this is very interesting point, when you foresight this collaboration in next stage, this can be also connected to the business model proposal.
