|
|
Faculty Profile |
|
・Profile
・Messages
・Learning Style
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Faculty Profile |
|
|
|
■Profile |
|
Tatsuhiko INOUE, Ph. D.
Professor, School of Commerce,
Waseda University
|
|
ACADEMIC EMPLOYMENT |
・Professor, Waseda University, School of Commerce, 2008-Present
・Senior Fellow, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 2012-2014
・Faculty Fellow, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry, 2011-2013
・Assistant Dean for Academic Affairs Waseda University, School of Commerce,
2008-2010
・Assistant Dean, Waseda University, Graduate School of Commerce, 2006-2008
・Associate Professor, Waseda University, School of Commerce, 2003-2008
・Associate Professor, Hiroshima University, Graduate School of Social Science,
2001-2003
・Lecturer, Osaka University of Economics School of Business Administration,
1999-2001
・Lecturer, Surugadai University School of Economics, 1997-1999
|
|
ACADEMIC BACKGROUNG |
・Ph.D. in Business Administration, Kobe University, Graduate School of
Business Administration,
Kobe, Japan, 1997. Dissertation: A Study of Business System Evolution.
・Master of Business Administration, Kobe University, Graduate School of
Business Administration,
Kobe, Japan, 1994
・Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Yokohama National University,
School of Business Administration, Yokohama, Japan, 1992
|
|
ACADEMIC HONORS AND AWARDS |
・Best Paper Award 2003 in Japan Society for Management Information
|
|
RESEARCH INTERESTS |
・Business Model Design
・Cross-border Transfer of Business Models
・Value Creation Systems (Business Systems)
・Business Ecosystems
|
|
■Messages for Prospective Students |
|
Ever since joining Waseda University, I have gone through various trials
and tribulations regarding what ideal higher education should be. I have
refused to confine myself to the world of academia; participating in new
product and new business contests, actually partaking in the development
of things, and conducting investigations in a way customarily favored by
journalists.
However, I have come to realize that, in the end, the best thing to do
at a university is research. Why? Because I discovered that research is
not only useful to the researcher, but is also of great service to the
practitioner as well.
University research first entails the setting up of a research problem
that would have value if solved. Next, an overview of previous research
is conducted; a hypothesis is formed, and then analyzed by actually performing
interviews and building databases.
There are 3 methods to guide new knowledge. 1) To add new insight by relying
on existing research, 2) contradict existing research by advancing an antithesis,
or 3) drawing a new conclusion from a higher plane of understanding.
Even in new product development it is exactly the same: an appropriate
theme is decided on; existing products are thoroughly comprehended; a hypothesis
about a product which will add new value is formed; actual market testing
is conducted; and the new product is created. This process also pertains
to adding new insight or creating something at a higher plane of understanding.
Both research and new product development require the support of data before
there can be any meaningful output: that is, both must possess value for
there to be meaning. The only difference between the two is that the value
of research is determined at academic conferences while the value of a
product is determined by the market. In terms of creating something new,
the process is not all that different.
If this is the case, a university becomes an opportune place to acquire
this proficiency. If you think about it, the reason why universities have
been acknowledged for centuries may be exactly because this is so.
|
|
■Learning Style |
|
In our laboratory, we adopt the producing of a master thesis in order to
acquire proficiency in practical knowledge creation. You will acquire the
methods of practical knowledge creation within a community of practice
environment known as a seminar effectively implemented in a Japanese university
setting.
A community of practice environment is different from coursework found
in an American university, or the 1 on 1 dialogue with faculty found in
England. It is a method where each member of the laboratory understands
the other member's research and helps each other in a cooperative fashion.
In this learning method, it is not adequate to simply be competent in one's
own research.
For a community of practice to work, it is undesirable for the research
themes to be too similar or too unrelated. One reason why is because it
is necessary to align the terminology and knowledge base to an extent.
Specifically, the following 4 principles will facilitate our mutual learning.
1) Themes in the laboratory will not directly compete with others
2) The basic mindset and concept of the research will be shared to promote
smooth communication
3) An environment of mutual learning will be created
4) Each will have a research theme that will be pursued hands on and with
the insight of others
By having your own theme, it becomes possible to learn by observing the
successes and mistakes of other member's research. Comments by other members
won't end as merely criticisms of faults or inadequacies of your research,
but will be followed up with proactive support by offering concrete ideas
to improve your work. You will also have the opportunity to think deeply
about the themes of members like it was your own. In this way, you will
learn about as many themes as there are members.
It goes without saying that this experience will be fruitful for those
who will progress into doctorate programs and eventually become professional
researchers, but also for those who will graduate with a masters degree
to tackle the corporate world.
|
|
|
|