developing five different MIMD machines with differing architectures in order to compare and evaluate implementation issues. All share one feature: that about 10 central processing units (CPUs) are connected by a single bus into a "cluster" within which main memory is shared. Clusters are interconnected by a network that differs from one PIM to another. The idea of a hierarchy is simply to reduce the problems associated with trying to connect many CPUs with low latency and high throughput. Five different industrial manufacturers are developing the different PIMs. Differences between them include machine instruction sets, number of CPUs per cluster, coherent cache methods, and network topology as mentioned By no fault of ICOT's, the large collection of different machines produced at different sites is confusing for observers who are not actively keeping track of the research. Please note that ICOT will host the International Conference on Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS), 1-5 June 1992, in Tokyo. For information, contact FGCS'92 Secretariat ICOT REAL WORLD COMPUTING above. These are called PIM/p, /c, /m, --David K. Kahaner, ONRASIA The Real World Computing (RWC) systems as moving from conventional computing (where numbers, documents, and data are processed) through Fifth Generation (logic-based) computing (where knowledge is processed) to flexible information processing (where intuitive information can be processed), which is the heart of the RWC program. Examples of applications of RWC systems include incompletely specified (ill-defined) problems such as understanding of situations in a noisy environment, large-scaled problems such as simulation of social and economical phenomena, and real-time problems such as man-machine interface with virtual reality and autonomous control of intelligent robots. The main technological aspects of RWC are seen as follows: (1) Development of the computational bases. This includes research separately on general-purpose massively parallel systems and specialpurpose neural systems, optical computing and optical devices, and system integration. (2) Theoretical foundations and the development of "novel" functions. The former includes all aspects of representation, storage and recall of information, information integration and evaluation, and learning and self-organization. The latter includes research into flexible recognition and understanding of multimodal information, flexible inference and problem solving on flexible information bases, flexible/ autonomous control, and flexible interactive environment for manmachine interface. The program will be organized around five fundamental policies: (1) A central laboratory (probably at or near the Electrotechnical Laboratory (ETL) in Tsukuba) at which common research will be performed, students and postdoctoral candidates trained, etc., and several distributed laboratories (which may not all be in Japan) for more highly individual research. (2) A competitive principle. During the first half of the program, a large number of different approaches will be supported, and during the second half research themes will be evaluated and concentrated. The program deliberately has a clear description but only vague, multiple subtargets. (3) Interdisciplinary and international cooperation. Active joint research with ETL, universities, etc. and subcontract research from Japanese and foreign research organizations. MITI feels that this program represents a real change of direction for its support of science: from one that invested in near-market development to one that was fundamentally research oriented. (4) Publication of research achievements to promote true international cooperation and open report information database, etc., as well previous conference, the second in the series, was held at the same venue in January 1991. These conferences were organized by the National Institute of Science and Technology Policy (NISTEP) of the Science and Technology Agency (STA). In recognition of the fact that science and technology (S&T) transcends national boundaries, the conference reviewed science and technology policy from a global point of view. It considered the questions "how can science and technology best be advanced for the promotion of the global economy?" and "how can the policy contribute to the challenge?" The meeting last year focussed on the issues of what should and what can be done in S&T policy research. It seemed to this observer that the papers this year were better integrated with each other. The RWC program schedule is as For general information contact NIPT Workshop '91 Secretariat ing via conferences and symposia. --David K. Kahaner, ONRASIA THE THIRD INTERNATIONAL (5) Establishment of infrastructure for The Third International Conference The proportion of participants from overseas at this conference was relatively large--they numbered 33 of the 140 attendees. A great many of the participants knew each other, which made the discussions and interactions much more animated than is usually the case at such meetings. Thirty-two papers were presented during 2 days; they were divided into six sessions: ⚫ Science and technology policy research Public policy • Innovation process • Internationalization • Research and development strategy • Recent developments on science and technology situations: general trends and environment The conference closed with a roundtable discussion at which Prof. Ikujiro Nonaka of NISTEP presented a summary of the highlights of the meeting. Discussion In the science and technology policy research section the papers mainly dealt with models and paradigms. Drs. Kinji Gonda and Fumihiko Kakizaki of NISTEP proposed an "L" model to relate science, technology, and industrial competitiveness. Drs. Fujio Niwa, Hiroyuki Tomizawa, and Fumito Hirahara of NISTEP conducted indicator analysis of Japanese science and technology. They argued that Japanese basic research and scientific infrastructure are poor in comparison with other developed nations. A method for technological and new products forecasting called Delphi Technological Forecasting was presented by Dr. Akitoshi Seike also of NISTEP. Science and technology indicators were also topics of a paper by Dr. Giorgio Sirilli of the Institute for Studies on Scientific Research and Documentation of the National Research Council of Italy. His main indicators were research and development (R&D), innovation statistics, patents, technological balance of payments, trade in high tech products, and bibliometrics. The effectiveness of policy measures was reviewed in the session on public policy. Prof. Marie Anchordoguy of the University of Washington, who is currently conducting research at Hitotsubashi University, presented a summary of a study she conducted for the Office of Technology Assessment on Japanese industrial policy and their supercomputer trade and targeting policies. She argues that "governmentsponsored cartels" and cooperative R&D projects and subsidies give the Japanese supercomputer makers an advantage in international competition. While that may be correct, her treatment of Cray Research as a company comparable with Hitachi, Fujitsu, or NEC gives a very wrong impression of the competitive edge held by the Japanese. These three Japanese companies are huge, broad-based companies, whereas Cray is a single product business with much less capital. Dr. Kinji Gonda of NISTEP studied the effect of industrial location policies on regional R&D in Japan. He reported that regional R&D activities are shifting from applied to basic research. Dr. Xiang-Hao He of the Research Center of Management Science, China Association of Science and Technology, who spent last year as an STA fellow at NISTEP, analyzed how Japan gained international competitive advantage. He concluded that petitive advantage. He concluded that Japanese export is vital to their economic growth, that their industrial system is divided into those that are export oriented and those that are domestic market oriented, and that Japanese industry considers R&D efforts as a main driving force for gaining competitive advantage. The system for the education and professional development of engineers was studied by Prof. F. Karl Willenbrock of the Department of Engineering and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon University. In the ideal system, he said, there would be a strong emphasis on science and mathematics in pre-college, a multi-route system in college so that options can remain open longer for the student, and multiple entry points permitting people to reenter to upgrade their skills. In the session on innovation process Prof. Wesley Cohen of Carnegie Mellon University considered the tradeoff between the size of a firm and its diverbetween the size of a firm and its diversity in promoting technological progress. He concluded that having a large number of small firms will result in a greater diversity in innovations but that an industry with larger firms will show a more rapid rate of technical advances on the approaches to innovation. Dr. Hariolf Grupp of the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research, Karlsruhe, Germany, reviewed the dynamics of science-based innovation in North America, Japan, and Western Europe. In his analysis he primarily used patent data. Dr. Diane Hicks of the Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex (she spent a year as a research fellow at NISTEP), examined the extent to which scientific research of Japanese corporations is globalized on the basis of the number of published papers. She concludes that Japanese companies actually rely heavily on Japanese sources. An attempt to identify the techno-economic paradigms through analysis of the innovation process was reported by Prof. Masaaki Hirooka of the Faculty of Economics, Kobe University. One of his conclusions based on the analysis of the technological lag of Japanese industries was that Japan reached the level of Western nations in the early 1970s. Profs. Don E. Kash, Institute of Public Policy, George Mason University, and Robert W. Rycroft, Center for International Science and Technology Policy, George Washington University, discussed "simple technologies," which can be understood by individuals and whose value results from revolutionary innovations and "complex technologies,' which are difficult for individuals to understand and whose value results from incremental innovations. For the former, they said, public policy must focus on generating new ideas that lead to innovations, whereas for the latter the public policy needs are greater and more complex. Prof. Fumio Kodama of NISTEP, who is currently a visiting professor at the Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, reported on the effectiveness of technology transfer in large and small firms. The session on internationalization was led off by Justin L. Bloom of Technology International, Inc. Mr. Bloom had served as the Counselor for Scientific and Technological Affairs at the American Embassy in Tokyo for 5 years in the late 1970s. He reported on American corporate investment in Japanese research facilities and among the points he made were (1) direct investment is much greater than imagined, (2) U.S. firms have not encountered much Japanese Government resistance in making technological entries into Japan, and (3) Japan tends to buy R&D while the U.S. sets up facilities from scratch. Orlando Camargo, Research Associate, NISTEP, reported on foreign firms conducting R&D in Japan. His study was based on the results of a questionnaire survey of senior R&D managers and senior representatives of these companies; 52% of the 132 firms surveyed responded. The biggest problems these managers faced were the hiring and retention of personnel. China's policy on international cooperation of science and technology was discussed by Liu Yong-Xiang, Counselor of Science and Technology, Embassy of the People's Republic of China. He strongly emphasized that the policy of China was to actively promote international cooperation with all countries with which it has friendly relations. Prof. Jon Sigurdson, Research Policy Institute, University of Lund, Sweden, reported on the impact of the internationalization of corporate R&D on science and technology policy. Five papers were presented in the session on R&D strategy. Prof. Richard Gordon, Silicon Valley Research Group, University of California at Santa Cruz, based on a study of the U.S. semiconductor industry, reviewed linear and evolutionary models for innovation and global competition and suggested a third, "social organizational" model. Dr. Yutaka Kuwahara of Hitachi, Ltd., discussed global R&D management and suggested "inclusive-interactiveness" and "visibility" as new concepts. He and "visibility" as new concepts. He defined the former as "internal existence of the subject which performs judgment of value and does activities judgment of value and does activities based on intentions" and the latter as "clearness in concepts, procedures, and practices." Drs. Yasunori Baba and Ikujiro Nonaka of NISTEP discussed the creation and transference of manufacturing knowledge in the die and mold industry; this industry was selected because, while it is a shadow industry, it is absolutely indispensable for manufacturing and thus a good indicator of trends. They state that the Japanese model of knowledge management can systematically integrate "two opposing types of knowledge into a powerful source of knowledge creation/ advancement." Prof. Kei Takeuchi of the Research Center for Advanced Science and Technology, University of Tokyo, discussed "technological conglomerates." These conglomerates are characterized by an existence of a core technology and a continuity in personnel and management. The final set of papers was presented in the session on recent developments on science and technology, which was divided into general trends and environmental issues. Of particular interest to me were the papers by Prof. Jon D. Miller of Northern Illinois University, who discussed the scientific literacy and public attitudes towards international competition in scientific research and manufacturing of Americans, and by Dr. Hajime Nagahama of NISTEP, who presented the characteristics of public understanding of science and technology in Japan. Using the definition of scientific literacy as having a minimal understanding of the processes of science, a minimal of the processes of science, a minimal understanding of scientific terms and concepts, and a minimal understanding of the impact of science on society, Miller reported that scientific literacy in the United States is 6.9%. Among Nagahama's findings were (1) the fraction of young males interested in "topics and news on science and technology" is falling, (2) the understanding (i.e., "awareness") of scientific knowledge such as "DNA" or "lasers" reflected school education content, and (3) attitudes of the Japanese, Americans, and West Europeans towards science and scientists varied considerably. Conclusion As we all know, the relationship between the United States and Japan, which former Ambassador Mike Mansfield often described as the most important in the world, has sailed into turbulent waters. Recent statements by Japanese political leaders and the very acrimonious rhetoric by American leaders have added fuel to the fire. There are a number of underlying causes to this friction. Among them are the hardships suffered by the Americans because of the recession, the trade imbalance, perception among Americans that the Japanese do (or will) not play by our rules, cultural differences, and language difficulties. As I listened to the presentations, two other equally important factors were apparent. One is that observers often have preconceived ideas and look for and find evidence to support them. An observer can make correct observations but can report them in such a manner that a wrong view or impression is conveyed. This was clearly evident in one of the papers presented by an American participant. Another is that we Americans tend to blow hot and cold on issues. This year one of the major Japanese "bad guys" is the keiretsu, which is a term for the Japanese industrial cartels or conglomerates; some of the famous ones are Mitsui, Mitsubishi, and Sumitomo. We feel that the manner in which the keiretsu operate, e.g., the group bank making capital available to a member company at low interest rates, gives that company an unfair advantage over its foreign competitors. Many American speakers used the term keiretsu often; last year that term was not used at all. A few speakers gave the impression that the keiretsu evolved relatively recently, that it was nurtured by the Japanese Government to help their industry. Actually, though, the system came into being in the 17th century and has existed in one form or another ever since. Prior to and during the Second World War, it was called zaibatsu. These two examples were disturbing because the American participants at this conference were scholars who are knowledgeable about Japan and, yet, one of them reported observations that conveyed a wrong impression and several jumped on the keiretsu bandwagon. The Japanese are tough and often difficult competitors. In order for us to compete successfully with them, it is imperative that we learn about their ways and plan our actions accordingly. This requires that we study their ways objectively with an open mind.-Sachio Yamamoto, ONRASIA |