Digital Relations Institutional Reform Study Meeting Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee (2nd)

Overview

Date and Time: Friday, May 24, 2024 (2024) from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
Location: Online
Agenda:
1. Opening
2. Proceedings
  1. Explanation from the Secretariat
    - Change of Members
  2. Explanation from the Secretariat
    - Progress of "Technology-based regulatory reform" and how to proceed for the time being
  3. Exchange of opinions
3. Adjournment

Materials

Minutes, etc.

Date and Time

From 13:00 to 15:00 on Friday, May 24, 2024 (2024)

Location

Held online

Members present

Chairman

Hiroshi Esaki (Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, The University of Tokyo)

Members

Yusaku Okada (Professor, Department of Management Engineering, Faculty of Science and Engineering, Keio University)
Keiko Ogawa (Certified Public Accountant, Banking Capital Markets Leader LegTech Leader Partner, EY Strategy and Consulting Co., Ltd.)
Tsukasa Ogino (Representative Director of the security Council for Important Consumer Products)
Hei Makoto Kato (Specially Appointed Associate Professor, Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering, The University of
KAWAHARA Yoshihiro (Professor, Graduate School of Engineering, The University of Tokyo)
Yumi Kawabata, Journalist Strategic Innovation Specialist
Taro Shimada (Representative Executive Officer, President and CEO, Toshiba Corporation)
Shinji Suzuki (Designated Professor, The University of Tokyo Institute for Future Initiatives, Director of Fukushima Robot testing Field, Fukushima Innovation Coast Initiative Promotion Organization)
Keisuke Toyoda (Specially Appointed Professor, Institute of Industrial Science)
Osamu Nakamura (Professor, Faculty of Environmental and Information Science, Keio University)
Kenji Hiramoto (Director General, Information-Technology Promotion Agency Digital infrastructure Center)

Minutes

Councilor Suga: It's time to open the second "Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee."

Members are invited to participate online this time as well. We have a time to exchange opinions in the second half of the meeting. As in the past, we use Webex chat to listen to questions and opinions from attendees as needed during the explanation. Please do not hesitate to post your comments.

In addition, this fiscal year, we will continue to ask Professor Ezaki of the Graduate School of Information Science and Engineering at the University of Tokyo to serve as Chairman of this Committee.

Then, Chairman Ezaki, please proceed with the proceedings from now on.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, . I am Ezaki, and I will continue to serve as chairman this fiscal year. Nice to meet you.

Also, thank you very much for taking the time out of your busy schedule to gather. I would like to express my deepest gratitude.

Today's proceedings are as follows. First of all, I would like to ask for a report from the Secretariat on the change in the members of the Committee. Mr. Suga, please.

Councilor Suga: Report. As requested, Professor Endo of Waseda University and Professor Someya of the University of Tokyo have resigned at the end of last fiscal year.

That's all for the report.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

In addition, today I would like to receive an explanation from the Secretariat on the progress of technology-based regulatory reform and how to proceed for the time being. Thank you very much.

Councilor Suga: Thank you.

This is the first meeting of the committee this fiscal year, and the contents include all the activities conducted during the last fiscal year. Although the materials are a little large, I would like to explain as compact as possible, so please let me know.

I will explain while sharing Material 2 on the screen. I will continue to omit the purpose of the committee meeting and the matters to be discussed. I will take a look back at the whole picture of technology-based regulatory reform. The reason why the Digi-cho started to do this was that in order to review 10,000 provision in regulation, while creating a process chart for the review in each regulation's ministries and agencies, it was pointed out that it was difficult to find whether there was a technology that could be used in the first place and that it was difficult to search for the technology. Also, even if you say that there is a technology, it is difficult to change the regulation suddenly by saying that it is okay to use it, and in particular, a safe regulation requires a validation of performance in advance, and it is very expensive to implement it individually. Therefore, I would like to collect as much knowledge as possible from Digital Agency, so I worked to compile the Technology Map, the technology catalog, and the validation project of technology.

On the next page, we originally set up a working group under the Digital Policy Consultation, and set up the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee under it, and we had six discussions. After that, the Digital Policy Consultation was reorganized into the Digital System Reform Review Committee, a permanent review committee in Digital Agency, and the Technology-based regulatory reform Promotion Committee was moved under it, and this was the second meeting.

I would like to briefly report on the progress in the order shown in 1 to 5. Let's jump to page 5. First of all, Technology validation. We have visited 32 Technology validation with companies. Then, each ministry has implemented the Technology validation Project in cooperation with a wide range of people, including the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, the Cabinet Office, Oita Prefecture, the Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. The results are summarized, so from the next page, I will report briefly, although the text will be a little detailed. The "Outline of Demonstration Results" in the middle describes the results, so if there are any items that you are interested in, please read them later.

I would like to introduce the third example from the top, Nippon Building Equipment and Elevator Center. This is a demonstration of whether drones and the like can be used in the periodic inspection of Ferris wheels and roller coasters at amusement parks conducted by inspectors in visual inspection. As a result, we made an extremely precise validation that the inspection accuracy can be equal to or higher than that of human inspection. In addition, since the inspection is dangerous because the inspector climbs up to a high place or is sandwiched, it is expected that the risk will be greatly reduced. In particular, it was confirmed that the drones inspection is very efficient in cases where it is necessary to climb up to a place where even an aerial vehicle cannot reach with a scaffold.

In addition, I would like to introduce the example of NTT DATA at the bottom of the same page. In this case, when a disaster occurs and damages a house, it is mandatory to conduct an on-site investigation to certify the damage. This time, we estimated and specified the area of inundation using aerial images and other data for flood damage, and conducted a efficiency to determine whether it is possible to make a validation and speed up the determination, including the inundation depth related to this certification. We concluded that it is actually possible. There are quite a few hurdles to enable each local government to use this system. It is said that this is Issue, but we have obtained a validation result that it is possible to determine that the entire district is completely destroyed collectively in a place where it is clearly flooded more than 1.8 meters above the floor and it can be assumed that the second floor is flooded.

Let's move to the next page. This is the second case of validation by Nippon Building Equipment and Elevator Center. As the name suggests, we are using a maintenance and inspection tool for periodic inspections of elevators and elevators to check whether it is possible to check the operating status of brakes and switches with the same accuracy as an inspector performing an inspection in a visual inspection. We are confirming that all the evaluation viewpoints are satisfied by using commonly available general-purpose products. In addition, it has been confirmed that the safety of inspection is improved by using this tool because there is a high risk when an inspector enters an elevator to perform an validation.

In this report by the Japan Building Equipment and Elevator Center, a specific revision bill for regulation was proposed based on the results, and I believe it is a highly significant example.

Next is the example of Riken Keiki. In this case, gas companies are required to measure gas characteristics once a day, such as what kind of gas is here now. They made a validation that they could make a highly accurate judgment by constant monitoring. It was confirmed that the accuracy was sufficient, that the accuracy could be maintained over a long period of time, and that the judgment could be made efficiently.

Next, I would like to introduce the second example from the bottom on the same page, MorphoAI Solutions. This is validation, which was conducted in cooperation with Oita prefecture. This is validation, where the power plant staff of the Corporate Affairs Bureau in Oita prefecture inspected a hydroelectric power plant and remotely read the numbers in the analog instruments to check for errors and errors. The errors and error rates were extremely low, and it was confirmed that the work could be performed with the same accuracy as the current confirmation work by humans. However, errors are likely to occur in a dark place, and it is necessary to devise a lighting device or to make settings according to changes in brightness on the reading side. This was extracted as Issue.

Next, on the next page, in the case of NTT e-Drone Technology at the top, as an alternative to regulation, which conducts field surveys in visual inspection to observe the South Pole, experiments were conducted in artificial climate chamber, which reproduces the South Pole, and in drones, where drones flies normally in cold regions of about minus 40 degrees Celsius. As a result, it was determined that there was no problem in operating in the South Pole, and it was more efficient than a human survey. In addition, it was reported that if it was flown in drones, it was possible to use the validation to create 3D models and take overhead images.

The next is a characteristic example of five companies participating in demonstration projects, which was also conducted in cooperation with Oita Prefecture. When a tree called a special protected trees and shrubs is designated, a field survey is currently being conducted to actually visit the tree to grasp the information for designation, and validation is being conducted to determine whether necessary information can be obtained in drones and other areas. While there are items that are expected to improve in accuracy compared to conventional methods that have only been measured from the ground, it has been pointed out that there is a shortage of learning data for automatic determination of tree types, and data enhancement is considered to be a Issue. In addition, trees are tilted, which is a management problem, and Issue when the tilt is constantly monitored has been identified as a communication failure.

In addition, regarding the example of KDDI Smart drones at the bottom, this validation is a very ambitious law that can respond to the three types of regulation targeted, the certification of trees in Oita Prefecture, which I just explained, and the separate validation of the Nature Conservation Law and the Natural Parks Law with a common solution.

Various surveys and confirmations are required in regulation, such as the habitat of animals even in severe environments such as cold regions, snow caps, and poor communication environments, as well as complex topography, the use of national parks, the measurement of the number of cars in parking lots, and the measurement of the number of birds. It has been reported that all necessary information has been mostly obtained. The Issue to be considered in the future is stable communication and securing power sources, and the avoidance of birds when using drones. It has been reported that this is Issue, so we would like to solve this problem.

On the next page, I would like to share the third report from the top, FairyDevices. This is a validation on whether it is possible to use a neck-type wearable device to remotely substitute for on-site inspection work in general. At present, two inspectors are visiting the site, plus a few, and it was found that the number of inspectors needed for the inspection could be reduced to one or zero in the end. In addition, it was confirmed that the cost of moving skilled personnel, which is the most scarce resource, to the site could be minimized. In addition, it is said that the advantage is that it is possible to take videos and confirm the work at the site asynchronously without always going to the site and watching the video at the same time.

As you can see, the report of validation, including other cases, is very impressive and very interesting. Therefore, as a reference material, I have shown slides that summarize the outline of the reports of each project. I would like you to take a look at them.

I will jump to page 13, but based on the whole, I would like to introduce some insights. First of all, we received a proposal to demonstrate the technology as a response to this type, but there were some that could be horizontally deployed to other types, and we were able to confirm the possibility of fairly wide deployment. Then, we were able to discuss in detail the accuracy of regulation compared to that of humans, including those that do not necessarily say how much accuracy should be achieved. It was very significant that the utility of the technology was confirmed, especially including the fact that drones is very effective at difficult heights in visual inspection. In addition, as I mentioned several things, it is quite common for inspectors to be forced to work in dangerous places on site, so the improvement of safety there is also a major advantage. Finally, there were cases where the effect of reducing work time and cost in various ways could be seen.

On the other hand, it says Issue and points to be noted below, but on the contrary, there were cases where the operation cost would increase at this point. For example, it takes two people to operate a drones now, so an inspection that requires one person to go to the site simply requires twice the number of manpower, and it is expected that such a Issue will be dealt with according to the maturity of technology in the future. In addition, for example, an explosion-proof drones has not been commercialized, so it cannot be used in areas that require explosion protection. It was confirmed that some functions such as this would be desirable in the future. In addition, there were many cases in drones, but there are new steps that are not included in conventional methods, such as flight permission and approval procedures, so additional operations are also required in Issue. Also, when trying to promote automatic judgment by AI, securing sufficient learning data is Issue, and if regulation is vertically divided, the collection of learning data is also divided, so I thought it would be meaningful to make it a big block and share learning data with everyone.

Based on the above, from the next page, I would like you to take a quick look at it. It is a mapping of where the technologies confirmed in each project correspond to in Technology Map by type of Technology validation and project. In other words, we are working to overlap the Technology validation Project and Technology Map. It continues until page 18, and on pages 19 and 20, the Technology validation newly confirmed to be covered by this technology is shown in the red frame in the entire map. I am showing you the second page now, and the contents are the same in both Technology Map patterns 1 and 2. The red frame part has not been written in white, but this time, it is written as a new coverage. In addition, the yellow part is newly added as a technology. I think it is almost impossible to read it in the projected materials, but it can be seen clearly on the announced website.

On page 21, provision, which we were originally very concerned about, accounted for about 8.9% of the total. We continued to conduct hearings and questionnaires to various people to determine the cause of this, and we tried to find out what was wrong. It only reinforced what we had as hypotheses, and we could not find any new additional viewpoints. As with what we have reported so far, it does not mean that we do not have the technology even if we did not have a validation, but it is true that we have found a certain amount of technology. On the other hand, when we conducted hearings, we found that there is technology, but it is not the bottleneck. In the first place, demand for such work is low, and considering the possibility of business development as a business, there were many cases in which we did not apply because we could not expect cost-effectiveness.

The other is our reflection. I think we should proceed with the concept of digital consultation. One of the reasons for this is that the required performance standards were not sufficiently specific. Therefore, some people said that it was difficult to determine whether or not our technology could be used in the Technology validation Project.

Also, regarding our reflection below, there are some cases in which we could not receive applications because the public offering period was too short or too rapid, not because of the presence or absence of technology, but because of the number of man-hours, etc. And, next to that, it is essential that there is still no technology that meets the level required by the specifications.

As mentioned above, we were not able to extract insights that could be attributed to a single reason. In addition, there was a discussion that it would be an idea to create regulation only in areas where there are needs for technology alternatives because there is a wide range of areas where those who have jurisdiction over Technology Map want technology but have not found those who have the technology. However, since there are not enough areas to create a map, we would like to temporarily postpone the creation of a separate version of Technology Map.

From the next page, we will talk about catalogs. On page 24, we have summarized the types of catalogs as a result of the open recruitment of the entire catalog. As I have explained so far, we have invited applications for the types of catalogs that cover almost the vertical axis of Technology Map and that can be used without technical validation. On page 25, we have summarized the number of applications that have actually been received and have been published in the catalog. At present, 177 applications have been published in the catalog on the Digital Agency website. Among them, about half are start-up companies, and currently, 82 applications, or 46%, are accounted for by start-up services and products.

On the next page, as I have explained in detail up to Type 2, the results of the public offering from Type 3 to Type 7 are specifically summarized. First of all, Type 3 and Type 5 received a large number of applications. As for Type 3, there are currently more than 40 applications in the catalog, and drones has a large number of applications. It was exactly as I had hoped.

In addition, when we grasp the situation in a wide area in drones, we can see many functions such as not only data acquisition but also analysis and judgment using AI. On the other hand, I have the impression that quite a few services do not conduct vulnerability inspections, and many people said that they conduct vulnerability inspections based on their own standards rather than based on guidelines that are used in Japan and overseas.

In addition, regarding the on-the-spot survey on the right, of course, we received various applications, but I believe that there were relatively few applications for the function of securing authenticity and the function of analysis and judgment, mainly for communication and information sharing platforms.

On the other hand, there were many cases in which vulnerability inspections were conducted in accordance with the guidelines. In addition, regarding the point added in response to the suggestion from the committee member, the confirmation of how much of the liability property to be used for the relief of the user is secured by a foreign company was also added as a question. Although one foreign company answered, it wishes to keep this information private.

The next page shows the next three types. The most common type is Type 5 with 59 cases. This also includes drones, and we received a wide range of applications for confirmation of the status of degradation. The percentage of vulnerability inspections was slightly less than 60%. In addition, regarding surveillance, we received applications from a wide range of products and services regarding abnormality detection technology, and it was confirmed that they almost have a set of functions to always notify when an abnormality is detected. Vulnerability inspections were performed by more than 80% of products.

Regarding the measurement and analysis of No. 7 of the typology, basically all technologies have measurement and analysis functions, and most of them also have judgment functions. It was confirmed that most of the technologies with automatic measurement functions also have automatic calibration functions. However, the percentage of vulnerability inspections is slightly less than 5%, which is extremely low for some reason. In addition, in response to the question at the bottom of whether there is an upper limit of compensation for damage or a provision of exemption, some answered that there is no special provision, that it is based on an individual contract, or that there is no compensation. There were many people with measurement and analysis functions.

As for page 28, the number of inquiries that have been published in the catalog is 177, but the Secretariat has received 585 inquiries up to that point, and we have exchanged and talked with them individually. This was a difficult work, and we were grateful for the knowledge that we have accumulated, but we have written down the main inquiries to each other.

From page 29, in light of the fact that the Technology validation project has been completed, when we proceed with the work of incorporating the knowledge we have obtained into the catalog, not only are individual technology fields listed on the map, but there are some functions that have been found to be necessary after the validation, although they are not included in the catalog's question items. These are summarized on this page. For example, the most common one is written in the "New Functions" section on the right. Since the anti-tampering function should be significantly emphasized, we would like to add new functions to the catalog's question items such as training and examinations, on-site inspection and public inspection, and visual inspection.

Also, it is very important to be able to obtain location information in the field survey, so I would like to add that. In addition, the "existing functions" on the far right side was originally a question item in the catalog asking whether this product has such functions, but the Secretariat did not ask about their accuracy. It was revealed as a result of the Technology validation that accuracy is extremely important, and for example, in training and examinations, it was necessary to calculate the percentage of inappropriate acts such as fraudulent entrance examinations and fraudulent participation. In the wide area grasp, we want to confirm the limit height in relation to the high operation limit of the drones, we want to see the accuracy of 3D modeling, and we want to see the accuracy of the judgment of the AI model, so we know that it is critical to determine whether or not the accuracy can be used, and whether or not to review the regulation and accept the technology.

On the next page, based on the above explanation, we have included examples of questions to be specifically added to the new functions. The numbers at the bottom are the products for which we have allocated resources to confirm the accuracy with extremely high accuracy, as we have asked validation to include our products in the catalog among the 32 projects we have conducted this time. We would like to include them in the catalog, and when we talked to them individually, there were 17 cases in which they said they would like to include them. It is a matter of reflection that it was a little less than I expected, and I would like to explain how to respond later.

The next page is the portal site. In relation to the renewal of the Digital Agency website itself, the first edition of Technology Map is on the next page in PDF on the Digi-cho website. This PDF functions as a landing site and has been viewed by many people. Even so, we have received requests from a large amount of information to allow us to search for it. Therefore, we believe that it is extremely important to be able to view this map dynamically in the future. As a first step toward that, we have added in-house functions such as a pop-up function to confirm consent to the Covenant and a function to display the items and types of Technology Map on the vertical axis by mouse-over.

On the next page, we would like to start this fiscal year. Regarding the catalog, it is now on the Digital Agency website in Excel, but there is an opinion that we would like to make it a little more convenient. First of all, we have added functions such as free word search and filtering.

On the next page, it is a consortium. The RegTech Consortium did not grow as expected at first, and I caused you great concern, but at present, on page 37, it has grown into a community with 456 participants. The number of participants at the bottom right is 456 as of May 21.

On the next page, although it is a little more detailed, we are also looking at how many of them are active, and the percentage of active participants is 69.16%, which is relatively high, I think. In addition, although it is a little off, what is shown in the red frame is that there have been a lot of one sided posts from the secretariat, but there have been more posts and reactions from the participants, so it has increased by more than 300%. The point of this success is that we have planned a number of RegTech meet, which is a study group of very small volunteers, and since then, the participants have started to communicate with each other. If you introduce advanced local government cases at this meet, they have started to have a DM on Slack and ask other local government people how they did it.

On page 40, how often do you use Slack? It seems that many people are used to using Slack itself. On page 41, I would like to ask the purpose of participating in the RegTech Conso. Of course, there are many people who want to obtain information, but there are also people who are expected to find friends or develop new markets. On the other hand, I feel that the purpose of the RegTech Conso is to obtain information.

On page 42, among the various events that Conso has worked on, the smallest event called Meet has received overwhelming support. I understand that there seems to be a high need for a place where we can share the hardships of the field, so I would like to continue working on it.

The last pages from page 44 are how to proceed from this fiscal year after summarizing the above. Page 45 is about the lessons learned. First of all, as I reported earlier, the Technology validation was originally developed based on the assumption that the Technology Map under the regulation jurisdiction would be used, and it is positioned under the law as such a request, but it has been found that other users are also using it quite a lot, and it seems that it is necessary to show information tailored to users. We have continuously received requests to continue to include it in the catalog even after the deadline for public offering, and it seems that people feel it is good to show the Digi-cho page when they sell their products and services, and such a way of using it has begun. ministries and agencies

In addition, when we reflect the results of the technical validation in the catalog, I said earlier that there were fewer requests for publication in the catalog than expected. As a reflection, we should have started the validation project based on the assumption that it would eventually be published in the catalog from the beginning, but since it was implemented as a completely different project, in addition to everyone being exhausted from the technical validation when it was published in the catalog, there were quite a few questions in the catalog, and it was confirmed that the hurdles were high because they had to be filled in again. Therefore, when we implement the project in the future, I feel that we should make a design so that data to be included in the catalog can be automatically obtained in validation.

Page 46 is an overview of our work related to Technology Map. I said that we would do our best because the yellow arrow is not available now. About half of the red "validation technologies will be listed in the catalog sequentially." In addition, the majority of the 1,043 provision that are said to be technology validation are declared to be technology validation independently from Digital Agency by ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation. Follow-up is also started as needed. When we visited there, we found that it was okay if we could talk on Zoom. As a result, there is a ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation called Technology validation. I think there are various things. In any case, if it leads to a review of regulation, it will be Mama. We will follow up steadily toward June. Also, it is a very welcome first step that you use this catalog for sales. In the end, I would like to see the technologies listed in this catalog connected to procurement on the ground.

The next page, page 47, is our activity policies for this fiscal year. First of all, regarding Technology validation, I have written two specific projects that we will work on this fiscal year as candidates. First, we would like to work with Machida City. In accordance with the Building Standards Act, we have a regulation to check the pipes in visual inspection for periodic inspections of specified building equipment. With the use of sensors, we can see the condition of the inside of the pipes. Machida City has asked us to do such a validation, and we are thinking of doing it.

The second is what we are currently discussing with Saitama Prefecture. What I have mentioned above is the Ordinance for Enforcement of the Building Standards Act, so it is still recognized as a rule and as a country. What we are trying to do with Saitama Prefecture is the outline and guidelines of the loss compensation standard. The method described in the guidelines is analog, so we would like to challenge whether we can replace it with digital. We would like to extend our hand to cover it. We would like to receive it as a project this time, and we would like to do it. Compensation is naturally provided when public land is acquired for public purposes, and in order to calculate the amount of compensation, it seems that we will go to the site to be acquired and conduct a field survey of the building. We would like to conduct validation on whether we can use LiDAR and other devices to make it possible to do it without going to the site and to make the calculation of the guarantee amount easier.

What is common to both is that the Technical validation conducted with Oita Prefecture, which is close to the site, has produced very good results. Based on this, I believe that it is meaningful in terms of the gratitude of the site to be close to the Issue that Mr. local government is dealing with. This time, I would like to focus on the number of Technical implementation that are more aware of the validation at the site.

On the next page, regarding the map and catalog, I have asked CTO Fujimoto to add functions, but I would like to improve them steadily. First of all, when conducting Technology validation projects, I would like to include them in the catalog, and then, in order to make the catalog more useful, I would like to investigate how the products listed in the catalog are used. In the first place, I would like to add a robust search function to the portal site listed and improve the UI as a measure.

In addition, it seems that the consortium has grown into a relatively good community, so I would like to continue to develop it steadily.

What I have explained above is shown in the process chart on page 49, so please refer to it.

That's all the explanation from the office. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, , thank you for your explanation. I think you picked up and talked about the good parts that are very important and will be a topic of conversation.

Then, the remaining time will be a time for exchanging opinions. Regarding the content of last year's performance and the direction of this fiscal year, I would like to ask questions and opinions from everyone. Of course, if it is difficult to talk, it is fine to write it in a chat, so please do so. If you wish to speak, please express your wish by using the show of hands function.

Mr. Toyota has already asked you a question in a chat. May I have an answer from Mr. Suga?

Member TOYODA (chat statement): It's late, but was the validation group held as a volunteer this time? Did it go through some kind of consignment or order?

Councilor Suga: . We provided the money in the form of a commissioned project, and we paid the cost in the form of validation.

TOYOTA Member: Thank you.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

Do you have any other comments or questions?

Then, Mr. Suzuki, please.

SUZUKI Member: Thank you.

I am Mr. Suzuki, director of the Robot testing Field in Fukushima. Thank you very much for collecting various data on Technical validation and for having various new knowledge. Many drones are used, and individual Technical validation are naturally necessary, but I think I heard earlier that there are various Issue in common. For example, there was a vulnerability item in the case of measuring with digital equipment, but almost all of this is necessary when using a system with digital equipment incorporated, but I had the impression that attention was not paid so much when using simple measuring equipment.

In addition, I have the impression that it is necessary to have common process certification throughout the entire process, such as calibration of digital equipment, maintenance and inspection of equipment, and whether the people who use it have the proper skills.

The drones Service Promotion Council, a general incorporated association, is creating the drones Service JIS to improve the quality of service using drones. Recently, a Pub Com was released, and I think it will be issued within this fiscal year. Using such a thing, we will work on process certification. I think there are things common to digital measurement, such as preventing the falsification of equipment, human resources, and data. I think it is effective to standardize the so-called process that everyone should protect. If you already have such a thing, you can use it. If you do not have such a thing, I think it is necessary to consider such a thing. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

If I may speak first, in addition to the products and services related to drones, the discussion on what to do with the inspection process you mentioned, what to do with the factory, and finally whether organization as cybersecurity is doing well is being vigorously conducted by the Industry cybersecurity Division of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry. I myself am deeply involved in this, and as a result, labeling at three levels and certification in some cases will be carried out. Fortunately, Mr. Suga is also concurrently serving as the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, so I am discussing how to put it well into this. In the explanation, it was revealed that cybersecurity, such as drones, in particular, is doing many things with its own validation tool, and I think that as the next phase, how to bring it into the common standard as you mentioned must be done in cooperation with Director ministries and agencies, but Mr. Suga, what do you think?

Councilor Suga: , I thought it was necessary to consider cybersecurity while studying who should be doing how much, but the committee members said that Issue is not doing as much as I expected, so I once again recognized that this is Issue. As long as we are implementing it using our own method, I think there are aspects that can be done in any way, but I agree that it is important to standardize the process, so I would like to recognize that, regardless of where we continue to do it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

May I speak to Mr. Suzuki?

SUZUKI Member: cybersecurity is quite advanced, but the whole process of inspection itself, such as data falsification and how to store data as I mentioned earlier, privacy issues, equipment calibration and equipment maintenance, and whether human resources training is done properly. It is a matter of course, but if we cannot do this, various Issue will occur, so I think it is necessary to properly standardize the process.

Councilor Suga: In that sense, we have spent quite a lot of money on the ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation this time, and at least to comply with the specific regulation, what kind of point must be validation with what accuracy, including what percentage of error is acceptable, has been codified into language. We hope that this will not be a one off, and when we comply with other regulation, the people of ministries and agencies under the jurisdiction of regulation who have advanced in this way have taken the trouble to codify it, so it will not be wasteful if it is spread horizontally. The entire process of the technical validation conducted this time has been summarized in the final report, and I have just explained a representative outline, but there is a thicker version with hundreds of pages. We would like to proceed with the work of digesting this as knowledge with the help of Mr. Suzuki.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

SUZUKI Member: , I would like to be a little more specific, but it is wonderful that each technical validation is doing it properly under their own jurisdiction, but I think that business operators who actually do it do it as their business, so I feel that it is essential to properly standardize management rather than technology to ensure that necessary procedures are taken properly in the course of business in order to properly conduct digital inspection.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, . I think this is your opinion that points related to operation should be properly included.

Councilor Suga: I'm sorry, but without my understanding, it may be added to the items in the catalog, or I may not understand where it can be done in the tools we have.

SUZUKI Member: In a sense, we have to do what we cannot do now. In the world, this is decided by ISO and the like, and in Japan, it is decided by JIS. JIS has also changed from an industrial standard to an industrial standard, and JIS for process certification can be established. Although there are very few JIS, I think that it is most important to establish such a basis in terms of strengthening the foundation. This is beyond the framework of the current discussion, and it is not just about current digital technology, but I think that it is necessary for society to properly work on this.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

As I think Mr. Suga has probably fully recognized, in terms of operation, proper corporate governance and proposition governance are necessary in addition to technology, so it is better to consider it as the next action.

Also, will Mr. Ogino make a statement on cybersecurity?

Mr. Ogino: Regarding the cybersecurity, what is difficult about the technology catalog is that it covers all industries. I think that various members who have been checked in advance are also worried about how to summarize the common requirements. For example, I think it would be better to proceed while making prior adjustments with the people of the Cyber security Center of the Cabinet Secretariat, the people of Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, and the people of the departments related to cybersecurity, including the people of METI. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, . I believe this is an explanation of Issue's future and on-going work.

Then, I'm sorry to have kept you waiting for a long time. Mr. Ogawa, please. You've been raising your hand.

Member: Thank you, Thank you.

Mr. Suga, thank you very much for your truly easy-to-understand explanation. I was deeply moved to hear that, thinking that I had come this far. Thank you very much.

With regard to the three points, I heard that what Mr. Suzuki said earlier was the same as what you said earlier because I am also specialized in risk control and I was very much concerned about it.

On page 29, which is another two points that Mr. Suga talked about, I thought it would be good to consider the utilization of this theme, for example, between catalogs or types. For example, on page 29, there was a comment about the prevention of falsification of certificates and documents among the new functions in the future, but if you look at the far right of Demonstration Type 13 on page 12, it is NFT and blockchain functions, which are shown as functions to control information falsification. I felt that there would be utilization between types in this way.

Finally, I would like to point out one thing. This time, I read a very large amount of information, although I could not see all of it as much as possible, and I thought it would be easier to understand if I could clearly understand the definition of KPI and effect measurement for the achievement of each purpose at a glance. For example, I believe that we were able to achieve various things, such as the reduction effect of safety risks, the cost reduction effect of efficiency, and the realization of unprecedented added values and sophistication such as constant monitoring and 3D modeling. If the clarification of KPI including the size of such things and the clarification of the degree of achievement are organized, it will be useful information for third parties or users, and I believe that it will be an extremely important organization.

What I feel as we do various businesses is that Issue tends to be used by the latest technology. I think that the purpose of this time is to solve the Issue that regulations on paper and in-person processes has had so far. In that sense, I think it will be easier to understand if the KPI of effect measurement is clarified, such as what kind of Issue was solved, to what extent, and how. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

It is very important to have a KPI, but I think it is very important to do it well so that it does not become a burden on the person who did it.

Mr. Nakamura (chat statement): There is an item on the accuracy of . I think it should be discussed depending on the purpose of regulation. Is it implemented in that way?

Councilor Suga: Thank you.

Mr. Nakamura also asked a question in the chat, and asked whether he was listening to the accuracy flatly and whether he was able to set a goal that he wanted regulation to achieve by taking into account his purpose. I thought that the purpose was in common with the question from Mr. Ogawa. No one has probably been able to do this so far, so this time, we asked a person in ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, who is physically strong and can cooperate to spend a considerable amount of effort. For example, we asked him to set the margin of error to be within this range. The most common expression when setting the margin of error is, at this point, how it is compared to the accuracy when people are doing it. In short, it was easy to understand the range of tolerance because people are doing it now, but we have not been able to go to validation to determine whether it is appropriate in relation to regulation's purpose. I think that requires more wisdom, physical strength, and resources.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

Member Ogawa's question is that it would be very good if we could further narrow down what kind of KPI is important in this, and if the requirement of accuracy increases significantly, ToBe will also be included, so I think it would be good if we could make it easy to understand what is defined as an extremely important KPI. The operation is almost the same as what Mr. Suzuki said, and I think your opinion is that it is important how to incorporate it as an extremely important KPI in the future. Thank you very much.

Then, Mr. Shimada, please.

SHIMADA Member: Thank you very much. This is Shimada.

I was able to predict that it would be like this before I started, but one of the things is how much digital can be substituted for the current regulation, so I think it will be difficult to make effective use of digital technology unless we overcome this. I think it will be so even if I see that there are cases where it costs more even in PoC. I think the most important thing is that I want you to make sure to conduct impact analysis. I think it is necessary to clarify how much savings can be made by doing this, and who will gain what and how much, for each validation item. Otherwise, it will be interesting and good, but I don't think it will be possible to get to the point where it is actually applied.

I would like you to do that. Furthermore, looking at the results of the validation this time, there are many contents that will be improved. In order to really apply this in the future, I think there will be no reason to spend money on it unless the use of digital technology is enforced.

These two points are very important, and in any case, I think we can make a little more breakthrough if we can proceed while making a validation to see how many people or the country or company will benefit from measuring the effect. That's all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

You are saying that we need to take the next step from AsIs to ToBe, which we have been discussing since last year. You pointed out that what you are seeing this time is something that could have been generally expected, so the next step is to do ToBe and take it to a place that is not AsIs. You are saying that the next step is to show it well as a KPI and how to put incentives into policies well.

SHIMADA Member: Yes. Thank you.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

What do you think, Mr. Suga?

Councilor Suga: . In particular, the fact that the accuracy was higher than what people are doing should be extremely critical, especially in the case of safety standards, and if technology can be used to get there, please go. I think it is naturally possible that the expectations from society themselves will be raised. Therefore, I believe that the review of regulation will not necessarily substitute technology for what people are doing, but that the appropriate level will be adjusted in line with the digital age.

On the other hand, I still don't have a specific image of how I should have measured the effect. This fiscal year, we are going to make a technical validation of two projects in cooperation with local government, but I thought I would make a good design while knowing what exactly I should do.

SHIMADA Member: I think the hypothesis that there are so many cases in Japan and so many can be reduced is good. Even if you actually do it with a hypothesis, if you verify it, you will get very different results, so I think it is better to make sure to do it as a set.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

It is a very important process to demonstrate in some field first. At that time, validation of hypotheses and actual systems is very important as a PoC or policy, so I think your opinion is that you should consider it.

Then, Commissioner Okada, please come in.

Member: I'm Okada.

Based on the current discussion, if you just say that it is a good technology, it will be OK to leave it as it is if the conventional method is cheaper than the technology. When you want people to use it because it is good, you should include the requirements that you want it to be like this as a performance and that you want it to be like this in the requirements for ordering. Then, utilization will proceed. As I said earlier, even if it is not economically viable, if utilization becomes common, people will use it even if it is a little expensive. Therefore, I think it is necessary to consider changing the ordering form to promote new technology on the ordering side, such as showing the functional requirements and performance ordering on the ordering side in local government and ministries and agencies.

However, I think it will be a medium - to long-term Issue rather than a Issue that should be addressed immediately. If they do not do such a thing when they actually place orders, for example, related companies will not even be able to read the catalog of new technologies, and it will be fine as it is. In other words, if they do not read it, they will not be able to respond to new performance requirements and function orders, or they will not be able to win the orders that will come out in the future, so they will have to read the catalog. I think it is good for local government and ministries and agencies to send an atmosphere and a situation in which those who are applied to regulation must read the technology catalog. Rather than writing such a thing in the technology catalog, I thought it would be good to tell ministries and agencies, which is under the jurisdiction of regulation, to consider creating a business environment in the form of environmental requirements in order to promote new technologies.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

In addition to the technical catalog, we need to create an ordering guide or functional requirements specification using it, and have them implement it. As you said at the beginning, how to include the operation aspect in the ordering specification is an extremely important aspect, so the next step is to embed what appears in the technical catalog into the actual ordering process.

Councilor Suga: , and considering that they are engaged in similar work, it is probably not realistic for all local government to have such ordering capacity. Even when I am talking with people in local government, the most common requests are to give us model specification, or to lend us specifications that can be used for procurement of good technologies made by other local government, and to copy them as they are. During this demonstration in local government, I was aware of what kind of specifications must be written in order to make procurement of validation technologies successful, and I thought it would be good to provide them in a form that can be referenced by other local government.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, If we can do that well, the RegTech Consortium will have a way to use it in daily life. I think it would be good if the secretariat could use some wisdom.

May I speak to Mr. Nakamura?

Nakamura Member: is saying, but I think there are various points to be stated, for example, the resolution of the image in the sample order form, whether the measurement point of the drones should be taken every 1 meter or every 3 meters, and so on. I think it would be easier to understand if there is a sample order form that says that the contractor who receives the order has obtained JIS certification, for example, and that the security conforms to the NIST guidelines.

What is difficult for people is that in some cases, people can detect with extremely high accuracy, and in the background of regulation, there are cases where such requirements are made. I think the quality and accuracy required differ depending on the purpose. I think it will be easier for everyone to use if the value is shown in this form in such a case depending on each purpose.

In the end, I think we will put a legal regulation on it. If we use digital technology, we can go as far as to say that we should do it at this sampling rate or higher, but it is still a long way off to create such a system. First of all, it would be easy to use if it included items such as sample purchase orders, which should be satisfied by operators and should be followed for security.

Thank you.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

Do you have anything, Mr. Suga? Go ahead.

Councilor Suga: . What had been a vague image is gradually becoming.

When I heard Dr. Nakamura's talk now, when I asked additional accuracy in the public offering item of the catalog, I thought that it would be possible to ask whether the expected value that there is accuracy in this range, rather than writing the accuracy without showing the standard, is not written freely, but whether it is there, if it can be clarified. Therefore, I thought that it would be possible to add a little expectation value and classify whether it is in this band.

Nakamura Member: Also, when you did a PoC this time, there was a discussion that it was better than or the same as a human being, but that's who you compare it with. Even if a human being does it, the skills differ depending on whether it is done by an inspector with specialized knowledge or by an amateur, so I think it would be good to compare the skills of what kind of people were satisfied this time. If you know that it is about the same whether it is done by a professional or by digital, I think it will be easy for everyone to introduce it.

Councilor Suga: For example, there have been results that digital technology has been able to count more birds with telescopes and binoculars, so I think it is important to compare it with who is doing it.

Nakamura Member: Even at that time, for example, the result is different between counting the number of birds by an amateur and counting by a person who has a lot of know-how, but I think I can go very far if I am told that digital is fine compared to a person who has a lot of know-how.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, That's right. It would be good if we could advance it from the place where it can be applied well without harassment and expand it to the next place.

Kawabata-sensei, please.

Kawabata Member: PoC, the cost will be high, or if we replace human work, such a thing will often occur. It will also occur in each field, and in some cases, while each is managing using digital optimally, if standardization does not progress to share digital information with each other as much as necessary to the people who need it, if we try to do it individually, the cost will increase as a result. Therefore, the vertical division is also done across ministries and agencies this time, but ministries and agencies is conventionally divided by convenience in human society, and in the future, when we proceed with digitalization, I think there will be a kind of organization organization optimized on the premise of digitalization. I think there will be more ministries and agencies that are crossed when digitalization is between here and here, so in that sense, I think the future roadmap will be very difficult. Like a journey map, if we visualize how regulation changes and how it works together a little more, I think the waste of data acquisition and data management will be reduced. digitalization

So, if there is a kind of optimized ministries and agencies vertical in human society at present, I think we need to look at the person in charge of the optimized digitalization in ministries and agencies. I think it is very difficult, but I thought it would be good if we could see the relationship a little more in the future roadmap. After all, it is very important to reduce the cost and use it, and I think the first step is to use it or digitalization it, so I thought such a step is necessary at the next stage of utilization. I think it will be related to the setting of KPI that other committee members mentioned.

Best regards

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

It will also lead to the story of data connections, so there will be many stakeholders, but as Mr. Kawabata said, this will be the place where we want to do the digital consultation, so it may be the next step.

Kawabata Member: That's right.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, , what is your reaction to this?

Councilor Suga: , I remember that we were also discussing such a matter when we launched the Digital Rincho, and I started it because I thought I could do it, but it was not that easy. However, it is not a story that can be contained in Technology Map, so I think it is actually the whole mechanism of the Digital Rincho. At this point, rather than showing the concept, I feel that unless we make several vivid examples such as the Elevator Center, which we hope will correct this part of the notification, and then generalize it, there is a significant division between those who make general claims and those who do not have such a perspective on the ground. If there are any good examples, I would be grateful if you could tell me about them.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, This time, the elevator industry, which was a mass of bedrock regulation, was very interesting. It would be very good if there were examples of places that were really great masses of regulation expressing quite positive opinions. So, I think the answer to what Mr. Kawabata said is that we will proceed with strategies to produce specific successful cases while having a long-term vision.

Kawabata Member: After understanding that it is difficult, I said the next step, the next step, because it is wonderful, but thank you very much.

Councilor Suga: is right. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Then, Mr. Hiramoto, please.

Hiramoto Member: My name is Hiramoto .

Thank you for your hard work on the demonstration. I think the demonstration and other efforts were very good. I think it was very good that the demonstration showed various possibilities. As for the technology catalog, I heard that there were many public appeals, but the examination was very difficult and the answers varied. Therefore, as Committee Member Kawabata explained, standardization is still important. There are many other projects that want to create tool catalogs or solution catalogs, and it is difficult for business operators to write these things in different formats, so I think it is important to standardize them. There is also CPSV in Europe, so I thought it would be good to gradually improve it by referring to such things. In addition, how to write the accuracy of data is exactly what everyone is struggling with, and there are various things such as the methodology of data acquisition and reliability, and international standards are emerging for such things, so if you could ask me, I would be able to provide information. I thought it would be good to improve such things and expand the technology catalog rapidly.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

We have been discussing from the beginning that such a portal site providing documents that should be used as a reference is a very important aspect, but what Mr. Hiramoto said must be done from now on.

Would you like to speak with Dr. Kawahara?

Kawahara Member: I think it is amazing that so many cases were gathered in such a short time. Thank you very much for your hard work, everyone involved.

Looking at individual technical reports, some seem to say that it did not work well, but from the engineer's point of view, I sometimes think that there might have been another way to do it well. That is a good thing, and even if it was impossible last year, there may be things that I will be able to do next time, or there may be people who say that I will do it for them, so I think that it is worth sharing these cases sufficiently.

In addition, I think it is good to use symbolic examples as clues, but I also think that there are things that can be eased immediately, so I felt that it would be good to accumulate knowledge about the process of regulation mitigation itself from such points. That is all.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

In a sense, I think this is the opinion that it would be good to do transparency and advocacy properly next year and have input for people and companies who have the capacity to improve. If it is consistent with what Kawabata-san said, I think Dr. Kawahara suggested that there is a possibility that technical cooperation and data connections will come out by making transparency. Therefore, I think it was the opinion that it is a very important process to get this out well, and to improve transparency.

What can I do for you, Mr. Suga?

Councilor Suga: I would like to. Some are wondering how long we will continue to do this through human wave tactics, and I think that it will progress by standardizing the knowledge and releasing the data ourselves. Therefore, it is fully open, and the report itself is open as long as it is commissioned, but if no one can read it just by posting a large number of documents, I would like to try various ways, such as spreading such things through consortia or promoting conversations.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

Member Katoh (chat statement): Could you create a mechanism to share information with other projects in Province?

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, was writing just now. Mr. Katoh, please.

Member: is different, isn't this result from the public offering for the purpose of Technology regulation? However, like other initiatives related to the recent digital lifeline, we are doing the same thing in the middle of doing it. So, the same knowledge is coming out, but it is not reported because it is not required to be reported as a condition for delivery and acceptance inspection by the government, so I feel that there is a lot of information that can be used as a reference in other projects. If we can share it with each other, I felt that a lot of knowledge will be gathered. This result will be disclosed in some form.

Councilor Suga: .

Member: So, if I gave a small incentive to other projects to tell me about this kind of thing, I felt that 10 or 100 times more knowledge would be collected at once. It may be a slightly different viewpoint from others, but I am also working on a number of national projects, and such things end up being closed as information within the business operator, so I thought it would be good if I could dig it up.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

One possibility is that if we let academia or academic societies see this, there is a possibility that the opinion of Professor Kawahara mentioned earlier that there are actually many solutions like this, and there is a very high possibility that technology in the automobile industry can be used elsewhere as it is.

Councilor Suga: On the one hand, I was reading it thinking that it was interesting as a material, on the other hand, I was reading it with a slight sense of deja vu, thinking that I would hear about this kind of story in quite a few other places. Therefore, I think that this is probably impossible with human wave tactics, but I think it would be interesting to be able to bring similar facts from the results of various demonstrations of different purposes that have been made in the world using generative AI.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Of course, I think it is very important for the Secretariat to receive good wisdom from the members and try it. I don't know if it will work well unless I try it, so I would like the Secretariat to think about it.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, , please.

Member (Chat): In addition to replacing all the work that humans have been doing with new technology, I think it is good to show options such as "division of roles between new technology and humans", such as partial replacement or human making final decisions only on suspicious parts after the new technology has been inspected.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Thank you.

Do the committee members have any other opinions or questions?

Councilor Suga: What you just pointed out is that when more than one person went to the site, some results showed that it was good to go alone, and others showed that it was good to go with technology. I thought that such a direction would be quite possible.

On the other hand, it seems that the more severe the regulation is, the more difficult it is for synergies to be realized.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, Do any other committee members have any questions or opinions?

TOYOTA Member: I am Toyoda, but I would like to go way off the point. Today's explanation by Mr. Suga is very easy to understand and completely free of waste in every word. I think it is quite difficult to publish only the materials, so I really felt that publishing this video would be the most effective.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, . The length is about 40 minutes, so it may be good to stage it well.

Anything else? Will that be all right?

Well, maybe it was because Mr. Suga's explanation was good, but it ended up shorter than the scheduled time. You all suggested that we have to do a lot of things in the future. This has been done by the Secretariat using human wave tactics, so if you ask us to do more than that, there may be an uprising, but I think it is encouragement and suggestion from you that we must use our wisdom as much as possible. I would like you to accept it.

Finally, I would like to ask the secretariat to explain about the next committee.

Councilor Suga: Thank you.

The secretariat will contact you again about the next committee meeting.

Regarding today's proceedings, we would like to announce it on the website of Digi-Cho after asking all the attendees from the Secretariat to confirm the draft minutes.

In addition, if there are no objections to today's committee materials, we will disclose all of them in principle.

Thank you very much for attending the committee meeting today. You always set a high goal, and we are encouraged to think that we should not settle down here, and I really feel that we lack wisdom at all for Issue, which we have to work on. I may make an inquiry again, but thank you in advance.

Chairman Ezaki: Thank you, .

Finally, Mr. Suga would like to ask for your cooperation. We would like to ask for your cooperation as much as possible when we receive a request. We would also like to ask for your continued opinions and suggestions. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for taking time out of your busy schedule today.