Executive Interviews

Yoshida: We also have a facility called the Measurement Center, but what specific thoughts did you have when you built your Technical Center?
Nagase: One day, we built a machine for our customers. Even though we said to them “Isn’t our machine amazing!?” the customers weren’t really persuaded. So I did the only thing I could do, which was to state repeatedly how wonderful our machine was. Then, one day, a grinding wheel manufacturer came to see us and said, "We made this high-mesh wheel with a 2000 or 3000 grit, which is fantastic, but I don't have a grinder that I can use it on. From what I've heard, your grinder seems to be able to grind with a resolution of 0.1 μ. Could you please try grinding a workpiece using our wheel?" We did just that, and the result was a mirror-like finish. All the various workpieces turned out with this same mirror-like look. I thought to myself that with a finish like that, there would be no need to hand polish the parts.” When we showed it to the customer, they didn’t believe us, saying “You polished it by hand, didn’t you?” “You took extra measures because it’s a test, right?” So I told them that, if they wanted more proof, I would grind as many workpieces as they liked as long as they were happy to supply them. It was that interaction that made me feel like we needed somewhere we could demonstrate and test processing, so we built our Technical Center.
Yoshida: Our Measurement Centers were built in order to create a framework that not only exhibited our machines but also allowed us to make proper measurement proposals and provide technical support while listening to the needs of our customers. Being able to listen to market needs is imperative to marketing. Customers who bring their workpieces are seeking something because they are struggling with some kind of issue. You have to capture what those needs are and let them guide you to the next development. Also, if the application staff do not possess the necessary know-how, they cannot make proposals to customers. As such, we built our Measurement Centers as more than just showrooms or applications.
Nagase: I think such a place is the crossroads of information. It's a very important place for me. In my case, I used to grind workpieces myself and take them with me.
Previously, we were making products of structures that were incompatible with the surface grinder made by a European manufacturer that was said to be the best in the world at that time. Despite this, we were presented with merciless machining specifications by the world’s leading manufacturers and had to achieve high accuracy, so the manufacturing shop floor workers were quite angry. I couldn’t get anyone to work on the project and also couldn’t get people permanently assigned to the Technical Center, so I did it myself (laughs). Looking back now, I think it's amazing that the president at the time (our founder) allowed it. Back then, we couldn’t even really afford to waste one screw, so I was very grateful that the president didn’t say our development work was useless, but rather praised us for having developed something so impressive.

Yoshida: When I think of Nagase Integrex, I think of your super-precision surface grinder. Do you have any uncompromising areas regarding technology?
When I was working as a group leader, I was meticulous about being No. 1 and told my team to be ten times faster than the roughness meter at the time. That kind of speed was not possible with the technology back then. As such, we shifted from the feed screw system used until then to a linear motor. Consequently, while we didn’t achieve a speed 10 times faster, we did achieve a speed 3 times faster, not to mention reduced the vibration to a fraction of what it had been. We also patented this technology. In order to manifest such a concept of “10 times greater,” one must devise a concept completely different to one’s competitors so that they can’t catch up. That’s why, when I was leader, I thought that if we could patent our technology, we could firmly differentiate ourselves from the pack. I believe that such technological innovation has made us what we are today. A company won’t become world No. 1 if it's satisfied with just being “a little different” to its rivals in the industry. I think it's important to be distinctly different in order to be the best in the world.
Nagase: For me, "being faithful to theories, principles, and fundamentals" is essential.
Recently, more and more people sound plausible when they speak. The vibe is one where it seems as though, rather than verifying the truth, one could persuade the audience by simply mentioning temperature and vibration etc., however, to accomplish one’s goal, we must stick to our theories and principles. I strive to share this perspective with all Nagase employees.

Yoshida: Accuracy can only be accumulated, right? It cannot be obtained unless you accumulate it logically a little at a time. Even if you obtain accuracy in an instant, I feel that it won’t be truly earnt unless one accumulates it from the bottom up. An analogy would be erecting a flimsy pole that immediately topples over. I perceive accuracy in the same way. You can’t create a good product unless you pay careful consideration to everything, starting from the material.
Nagase: I have experienced and witnessed many scenarios where principles and theories are important. When I was considering purchasing a roundness measuring machine from an overseas manufacturer in the past, I asked the sales person in charge if there was a fundamental theory behind the roundness accuracy his company’s product claimed to offer, and he told me evidence existed in the laboratory of the British royal family. Then, when I asked him what was used to measure the accuracy, he told me it was his company’s measuring machine. I was not convinced by that answer alone, so I asked him what was used to actually verify the roundness accuracy. At that point, he got annoyed and retorted, "At the end of the day, a machine tool manufacturer without our roundness measuring machine is simply no good." Needless to say, we didn’t buy from them. After that, I learnt that roundness was measured using methods called the three-point method and inverse method, whereby the accuracy of a master workpiece was measured and how one could determine just how round something was by applying these theories. I thought to myself that, if only the sales rep back then had explained all this to me, I probably would have purchased his roundness measuring machine. That’s why I believe that companies who leverage a certain level of technology to develop products share a common belief that theories and principles are of significant importance.
Yoshida: Our company is also solid in that aspect.
Accurate measurement is not possible unless we can eliminate any error in the turntable of a roundness measuring instruments. If you shift the phase of the turntable a few times and compile all measured data then remove the difference, the characteristics of the table itself will finally become apparent. Roundness is obtained when this is calculated by a computer. I was engaged in software development, so I did a lot of data processing.

Yoshida: Recently, IoT and AI have been attracting attention. What are your thoughts on this technology?

Nagase: My impression is that these areas have been particularly focused on since Industry 4.0, but I think IoT is a concept that has had latent potential for quite some time. Some companies have been utilizing IoT for a while in ways such as monitoring machining operations while on a business trip, or collecting data from a remote location to see whether the machine delivered to a customer is running.

Moreover, I think that the demand for automation and labor-saving solutions, including AI, cannot be stopped. In a way, it’s sort of a self-defeating situation. If a machine can process parts three times faster than before, or a task that previously required three machines can be performed in a single machine, this translates to less of a need to build machines. This is fine while the market that needs machine tools is still expanding, but as it matures, a situation where people’s involvement is no longer required will arise, therefore, there’ll be no need to manufacture machines. In a sense, it is in the self-contradiction, isn't it? That makes this trend somewhat self-defeating, wouldn’t you agree? But it isn’t something that can be stopped. We just have to respond to it.

Yoshida: I see IoT as an opportunity for measuring machines.
Until now, the attitude toward measuring machines was that they were only needed to judge whether a workpiece was pass or fail, that they were not essential for production, and that process management was enough. If IoT and Industry 4.0 transition the industry into an era of total production management, then measuring machines will be integrated into production lines as one production asset once manufacturers realize they can contribute to raise production efficiency and accuracy.

An even stronger need will arise if we get to the stage where products cannot be made without measuring machines.

I think demand will increase if we reshape measuring machines to suit the flow.

Nagase: In the future, it would be nice if ACCRETECH and Nagase could jointly develop products that meet the times.

Yoshida: Yes, we would definitely like to cooperate with you on that.