Differences between Japan and other countries that I learned through international standardization activities
Some standards proposed could not be applied for practical use.
How did you become involved in international standardization?
When I was working at the Optical Department, TC 172/SC 9, the committee at ISO, began a project for standardizing measuring methods of a laser damage threshold for optical components. This was in order to create yardsticks for the durability of a lens when a strong laser is projected onto it. When Nikon decided to participate, I took charge.
Were there any difficulties involved in that process?
IC steppers and scanners employ an excimer laser, and a strong laser of a few billion pulses passes through the lenses of the machines. But SC 9 back then was deliberating standards based on durability for a laser at about 1,000 pulses. That was not appropriate, I thought, so I changed the standards so that they would be more applicable to IC steppers and scanners.
That must have been a tough start for you.
Several other inapplicable standards were being proposed. Some overseas manufacturers may have been unaware of some of the characteristics of glass. They lacked an understanding of the flexibility of glass and were holding discussions to establish standards for optical components, including lenses, based on an assumption that glass can achieve dimensional accuracy on the same level as metal. When determining standards for the measurement of reflectance and transmittance, the committee almost decided on very inefficient methods that employ lasers only. I asked other committees for cooperation and did everything I could to create another standard for methods that utilize a spectrophotometer.
Standards that do not match reality must cause problems. International standardization certainly has a profound meaning.
Setting international standards creates a new market and helps companies enter it. But creating standards for everything is not the complete answer. Some fields, in which manufacturers distinguish themselves from competitors, should remain untouched. This creates the room for companies to compete and advance technologies. We must examine what should or should not to be standardized.
Are there advantages and disadvantages for participating countries?
ISO rules stipulate that standards are decided by voting. Each participating country is given one vote. European companies often collaborate in technology development regardless of national boundaries. In such cases, Europeans have more than one vote for the related standards, which can be an advantage for them. On the other hand, Japan is in a more difficult position.
Furthermore, Japan and Europe have very different ideas about rules. In Japan, rules are to be observed, but in Europe, they are to be created. That is the fundamental difference that divides us. Japan must change its attitudes toward rule making and be determined to more aggressively express its opinions.
A department dedicated to international standardization is essential.
International standardization must take on a profound meaning for Japan's manufacturing industry.
Since international standardization is clearly listed as a duty of Oi Research Laboratory, the related tasks have been clarified as part of corporate activities. I have long worked on these tasks, although they were not included in my job description before the laboratory was established. In reality, I was working on them alongside my primary duties. But standardization naturally involves a company's own technologies, methods and strategies. Our Oi Research Laboratory may be considered rather a temporary establishment within the company. Instead, a company needs a department that works on international standardization considering the company's strategies and intellectual properties comprehensively, I think. I am also trying to create such a structure.
Nikon designs and manufactures a wide spectrum of products. Is the company involved in standardization for each product?
Experts of each department, such as those for cameras, ophthalmic lenses and microscopes, are currently working on their own standardization activities independently. The company must organize an all-encompassing system with a department that oversees all of these activities and supports them comprehensively.