Study Group on the Ideal of a Digital Transportation Society (4th)

Overview

• Date and Time: Friday, May 27, 2022 from 10:00 to 12:00

• Location: Digital Agency 20th Floor Meeting Room (Online)

• Agenda:

1. Opening
2. Presentation, Discussion
   "Study Status of Architecture design on Autonomous Mobile Robot and 3 d Spatial Information Infrastructure"
   Dear Mr. Saito, IPADADC
3. Future summary
4. Adjournment

Conference Video

The conference is available on YouTube (Digital Agency official channel).

Materials

• Handout 1 Agenda (PDF/289KB)

• Document 2: List of members (PDF / 366 kb)

• Handout 3: Review of the previous issue (PDF / 909 kb)

• Exhibit 4: Points to be discussed today (PDF / 210 kb)

• Exhibit 5: "Status of Studies on Architecture design for Autonomous Mobile Robots and 3 d Spatial Information Infrastructure" (Materials presented by Mr. Saito) (PDF / 3,134 kb)

• Document 6: Summary for the future (PDF / 738 kb)

• Minutes (PDF/499KB)

Relevant policies

• Mobility

Minutes

Director-General Murakami: The Best regards

We are finally getting closer to the conclusion of the final stage. As I have requested, I would like to aim to draw a time road of systems and technology from the supply side of technology in Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap so far, and to draw a line chart of the side of life that uses it on top of it. What I would like to ask you to consider at the end of this stage is that this means of transportation has been created by extending it to the top, and it is good to draw a picture of who will use it and how it will be used, but it is very difficult to determine whether the upper and lower halves are really linked. If public office mistakenly draws a picture that he wants the upper and lower halves, I think it is much better than not having them, but if there is one, it will not work. It may be a small thing, but it should be arranged on the lower side. We are finally getting closer to implementation, and cars that are practically close to Level 4 are actually running in the world. In this situation, I think we will skillfully find out what the hook is, and even if it is a small thing, it may be a key factor in the roadmap to be created based on this.

In addition, as I introduced a deformed example in the middle, there are two bus companies and two taxi companies, and all four companies are struggling financially, but there are still businesses that are not moving. Even if we say that the supply and demand should be adjusted under the situation that the number of buses must be reduced due to the declining population, we cannot adjust from the supply side, so we must change to a society in which everyone shares the digital infrastructure and the supply side picks up the bus according to the demand. However, we cannot create a mechanism to share the investment, so we do not move the investment, although we know the logic and have the technology. Since the investment, including the actual operation, does not move, we know the logic to be done, but things do not move. This will be discussed not only in transportation but also in Digital Garden City in general, so I will issue a basic policy this time in June. For the comprehensive strategy in December, and in the future, how will the Issue of Digita be used by each area? I think that one of the places to be considered is to carry out various area practices in the context of Digita. I would like to discuss from various perspectives, with a little awareness of how to link the upper and lower levels, and how to build an investment business model that will be the key to connecting them. I would like to thank you very much for your cooperation today.

That's all. Thank you very much.

Chairman Ishida: , I would like to ask for your continued support today.

As usual, I don't mind if you are making a presentation on the Teams chat, so I would like you to post more and more.

Next, I would like to ask Mr. Saito of IPADAC to make a presentation. Nice to meet you.

Mr. Saito: Because it is Now, I would like to introduce an autonomous mobile robot and 3 d spatial information being studied by DADC of IPA.

What we are considering here is Society5.0, so-called digital society. While anticipating what kind of society we will be in the future, including architecture, in the midst of the progress of each development and actual social implementation, for example, if we decide on cooperative areas as it has been said until now, we must decide on it properly and reflect it in implementation. If anything, in order to create an agile way of creating Society5.0 while creating a layout, DADC is promoting the idea of building Architecture design under a vision as a whole.

As you know, DADC is a neutral and transparent organization, and in a sense, it is a organization where industry, government, and academia work together to gather experts and decide what to do in the future. We are considering this. Now, we are talking about autonomous mobile robots and contracts and settlements. This time, I would like to introduce autonomous mobile robots.

The necessity of Society5.0's architecture here is, as it has been said many times, Society5.0 is human-centered and each individual can obtain an optimal experience, and in the course of making it possible to respond to the so-called Issue of the age, such as decarbonization and declining birthrate and aging population, for example, what will happen when data and AI substitute human decisions, what will happen when people and machines coexist, and in a sense, what will happen when user experience and "things" become the center. It is not an extension of the conventional way in which each part has been working separately, but it is good to proceed with development sequentially in an architecture that includes a future vision. Although I have not written it here, there is another story of data-driven and data-driven in the background, and Society5.0 will become a data-driven society. We will consider this by incorporating a cycle in which we improve while grasping the so-called three reality principle, the field, the actual thing, and the reality with data, and we will start by properly considering architecture and data in it.

I have listed three main points in Architecture design. Basically, from the perspective of balancing stakeholder sympathy and use cases's business value at the top, we will assume that the vision and use cases will be embodied from the customers' and society's perspective and the necessary functions will be specified. Second, we will assume that cooperative areas and competitive areas, which are areas where economic development and innovation are necessary, will be determined as cooperative areas, and that the layer and module structure will be specified for the allocation of the viewpoints of the necessary functions. Third, in order to ensure safety and reliability and promote innovation at the same time, it is necessary to embody incentives and enforcement for social implementation and diffusion, and we will proceed while assuming such things. As a specific example, an interim report is written there, but if you are interested, please link to the detailed content.

The reason why we envision a vision and use cases is that cyberspace and the physical space will be highly integrated in the future, and a future vision that simultaneously realizes human-centered and social solutions to Issue and economic development will be necessary. To put it another way, it is necessary to assume what it should be and add successive efforts toward it. It is somewhat like the Sagrada Familia, but where it will take many years, let's decide on an architecture first and execute it sequentially within it, and then revise it sequentially. That is one of the reasons why a vision is necessary. As you can see on the right, what we envision is not just robots, digital efficiencies, and visualization, but also the need for moves to create wealth and enrich human lives while solving social Issue in a data-driven way, as I mentioned earlier. We are proceeding with the idea that we must consider an architecture while assuming such things, including EBPM's story.

In regard to the image of design, as we are currently involved in vertical and horizontal governance, as Professor Shirasaka introduced the other day, basically, vertical cooperation is supposed to consider a layer structure that secures the reliability of data distribution and CPS and makes responses to change flexible, and to suppress the cost of society as a whole by creating a common layer instead of creating a development between the public and private sectors and ministries and agencies. I believe that horizontal cooperation will provide various services in private sector. I believe that various services will be provided in the government, but we will consider an architecture that ensures interoperability of services and enables modularized service cooperation. In fact, we are proceeding with the assumption of this architecture because it will provide a variety of choices for users. In addition, in the world of CPS in digital society, where cyber and physical are fused, a new governance mechanism will be required amid the occurrence of new risks that have never been seen before, so we must change governance while assuming that innovation will be activated in a sense. We are also proceeding with this within the scope of Architecture design.

At present, our position is that under the command of Digital Agency, the host ministry and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry will support the development of rules related to industry and the development and introduction of systems for private sector companies, including NEDO. While METI and each ministry and agency are cooperating, we have set up a study group of experts in DADC, and we are working to implement Architecture design in an all-Japan manner. There are not always talented people, but private sector and education organizations are participating one after another, and in a sense, it is a place where we can all think together about the common infrastructure of Japanese society, and the content is neutral and transparent.

In this context, I would like to introduce the society realized by autonomous mobile robots. Basically, autonomous mobile robots will build a social system that advances digital completion, automation, and overall optimization. Toward the realization of Vision for a Digital Garden City Nation as it is called today, people will be freed from the restrictions of time and place and will be able to focus on valuable activities. Toward the realization of new capitalism, the entire ecosystem will grow and realize a society in which profits are appropriately distributed. In this context, in order to lead to social Issue solutions and industrial development, as shown below, for example, we are considering an architecture to realize a story in which "things" and "things" can be enjoyed anytime and anywhere, a place where industry attractiveness can be improved and activated, and a place where profit can be improved and shared. At the bottom of this, from the perspective of Issue solutions and benefit improvement for society, users, and businesses, we are currently creating an architecture based on the assumption that we will respond to declining birthrate and aging population, depopulation, labor shortages, the intensification of disasters, aging infrastructure, and the decline in the international competitiveness of industry, including carbon neutrality.

This is an introduction to our efforts. Basically, rather than what we should do with life services and communities from the perspective of residents, which we are discussing here, in a sense, what kind of infrastructure will be used when, for example, today's autonomous mobile robots are used. As you can see here, from the left, in the infrastructure / public sector and the primary, secondary, and tertiary industries, we assume transportation, surveys, and work as the use scenes, and consider what kind of infrastructure is necessary when used here. We assume an architecture in the use scene under use cases, and in a sense, we are trying to find cooperative areas by abstracting it. On top of this, we are actually creating various communities from the perspective of residents, and using the data to provide good services. We are creating a good community. We have an image that the actual world of data utilization will be on top of EBPM, and we are considering the specific place where the "things" below will be moved, and we are considering the architecture in the use scene and the architecture as infrastructure.

Here, I would like to introduce the specific content and what we are considering in order to respond to disasters in Issue. Basically, as was the case with the Great East normal times Earthquake, it is necessary to consider infrastructure and infrastructure systems, including the supply of goods, in the event of disasters, assuming that it is not a normal times of disasters, emergencies, or disasters. In order to protect the lives and livelihoods of the people, in addition to the commercial infrastructure development for various social disasters that we are currently promoting in private sector, we are also assuming that we must do this in the event of disasters in a coordinated manner. From the perspective of what infrastructure should be from the perspective of the so-called, and how to protect lives and the lives of the people in a coordinated manner, I believe that this is the content that the national government should promote, and we are proceeding while assuming disasters at the beginning. implementation

Basically, in the event of disasters, as described here, it is said in various places that lifelines are disconnected, information is insufficient, and there is anxiety and inconvenience in shelter life. There are details in it, but for example, in the case of the disconnection of lifelines, it is said that in the case of a metropolitan inland earthquake, about 34 million meals will be short of food or drinking water in the week after the earthquake, and in order to ensure that Issue is in the system for supplying relief goods, what should be done to ensure that lifelines here are not disconnected? The leftmost story is that we are thinking about how to create such a system by using air routes and robots.

After that, there is a lack of information on the right side. Basically, it is difficult to grasp accurate information at the time of disasters, and response measures, including so-called initial response, are not available at present. Now, we need to consider a mechanism that can collect information in the affected area and make accurate and quick decisions, while using robots, not limited to robots alone. This is not a project to be conducted by private sector alone, but it is better to consider a mechanism to collect information in a form that links such infrastructure and digital infrastructure. That is why we are thinking about the middle.

In the end, from the perspective of the disaster victims, we are thinking about how to create a mechanism that can somehow alleviate the problems of not being able to provide sufficient care, feeling stress, and feeling anxiety in shelter life. From this perspective, for example, from the perspective of the residents, we are thinking about what should be prepared. We are thinking about system architecture from the perspective of the disaster victims. If we can create a system that can be properly connected to the layer where the current distribution route is located, we are working on the assumption that Issue can be used as a social infrastructure.

Currently, there are various discussions and specific existing initiatives. These are about the provision of solutions that collectively manage and support tasks such as information collection, decision making, and operation management necessary in the event of disasters. Aerial imagery of drones and image processing by AI are advancing. Various use cases here, from initial response to information collection, what service providers are doing in various locations, including aircraft manufacturers, are listed on the manufacturer and vendor side. While cooperating with the progress made, we are considering cooperative areas as a total architecture. Although it is not agile in a sense, we are considering cooperative areas as the final architecture target, competitive areas and cooperative areas by each manufacturer, in cooperation with the progress made on specific themes.

It is a To-Be use cases for disaster response. This is the general flow in the event of a disaster, and it is a summary of what is necessary at that time. This is not all, so I don't want you to think that this is all, but it is assumed. First, in the event of an earthquake, for example, in transportation, centralized management of robots, in investigation, centralized management of information, in work, dangerous relief work is not allowed to be done by people. In the case of transportation, for example, a mechanism that gives the highest priority to disaster response must be put in place, so a mechanism that puts robots under centralized control may be necessary. In the case of investigation, a mechanism that allows all information to be shared with stakeholders may be necessary. In work, automatic work optimized by AI may be necessary. We will respond by assuming these things. In a few hours, supply of relief goods and collection of damage information will begin, and in a few days, early reconstruction and rapid assessment of the amount of damage will be possible. What should be assumed for that? In addition, we will consider what must be considered in support for shelter and maintenance of the surrounding area, and we will consider a specific architecture under use cases.

One more thing, in terms of the architecture we will create, we are talking about disasters, but basically from the perspective of social value from various Issue and use cases, social value from the perspective of declining birthrate and aging population, disasters and infectious diseases, and quality of life, and economic value from the perspective of increased revenue, improved safety, reduced labor costs, and reduced equipment costs, while organizing outcomes, it is necessary to specify ways to improve outcome indicators in the form of a combination of all other means by using the autonomous mobile robot and digital system that we will create this time, and we are considering how to improve them, including KPIs.

In this context, I would like to summarize from the perspective of the suggestions obtained from the use cases analysis that we have been studying so far. Basically, in order to operate businesses efficiently while responding to diverse needs in a prompt and appropriate manner, it would be good to create a system in a multi-domain form in which mobility can be used by multiple industries, a multi-purpose form in which mobility, infrastructure, and data can be used jointly, and a multi-modal form in which various mobility can be linked to perform missions. To be specific, it will be in the future, but if we consider cooperative areas by assuming this in the architecture that the country will create as a system, we will be able to create a form in which private sector works will be linked at some point, so we are proceeding with the assumption of a cooperative areas in which service operation can be performed by such a multi-model.

This is a digital architecture. If we abstract and take a broad view of the architecture we envision, it is a system that manages safety from the top, a system that manages operation, an IoT infrastructure, an individual system, a system that mediates information and transactions when performing various missions through operation management, and a system that provides services. Through these systems, users can obtain the benefits of mobile robots. What is written in each of the multiple systems is that there are modules in this layer structure, and it will be a form in which multiple modules are connected. The breadth of the depth shows the module structure. In addition to this, I would like to talk about spatial information. I would like to talk about spatial information in order to use spatial information in cooperation with safety and operation, and how to make it operate well in drones.

This is an outline of a system for distributing spatial information. It is called a three dimensional spatial information infrastructure. Basically, while aiming at digital completion, automation, and overall optimization, we are creating a mechanism in which an autonomous mobile robot system can easily integrate and retrieve different types of spatial information, in a sense, digitalization, so to speak, can be discretized and taken in in the digital domain and can be processed at high speed in a small amount. Furthermore, using a three dimensional spatial ID, which can uniquely specify a position even in spatial information based on different criteria, as a retrieval key, we are basically creating a technology development and standardization that can automatically combine various types of fresh spatial information at high speed and can be easily retrieved.

Voxels are included in this box, but as a space, information is embedded in such a box, and basically, when drones flies, according to the size of a voxel, if there is a "thing" in this area, ID is attached to it, and it collides with it, so it cannot fly, and a non-flightable area is created, and if you go to the right side, you can fly while determining a flightable area. This is how we aim for spatial information digitalization. One of the things we are doing is to ensure real-time performance because various processes can be performed at high speed and various cooperation is easy. Another thing we are doing is to link various map information with ID, and to create a foundation to link information created by various people.

This is a specific image of spatial information. For example, on the left side, this is meteorological data. Going down from the meteorological data, areas with wind speeds of 5m/s or more are extracted, and areas where drones is dangerous are extracted. In the middle, there is construction data. This is PLATEAU data, and linked to this, there are buildings. We are talking about defining the area where drones can fly by superimposing this as spatial information. In addition, while the size of the voxel can be changed in various ways, for example, if the voxel size is made at a pitch of 50 meters at the largest, a child voxel is provided inside the voxel so that various information can be obtained at a small size in a sense, and we are considering creating such a world of spatial information.

This is the basic concept of the infrastructure of 3 d spatial information. At present, with experts, we are considering whether such an architecture would be good or not, and the architecture of a distributed infrastructure system would be good. We are considering an infrastructure that can efficiently distribute and utilize vast amounts of spatial information by standardizing interfaces, mobility IDs, and spatial IDs while organizing layers from data provision to data utilization and modularizing functions, and by constructing a distributed infrastructure consisting of many systems operated by different parties. For example, in normal times, we would like to connect MaaS, which performs the optimal operation of mobility based on the needs of users and society, and in smart cities, we would like to connect MaaS to planning while utilizing data here. In the event of a disaster, many mobility respond in cooperation, so we can grasp the damage situation in a timely manner, share it, and deliver goods. We would like to consider an infrastructure that assumes such a spatial information system. design

In particular, on the right side, there is the function of cooperative areas. What seems to overlap here is that even if various public institutions or manufacturers and vendors deal with it, they can create a cooperative areas that can be used in a modular manner. They can create catalogs, data catalogs and system catalogs, and common software for libraries and tools for them. They can create rules. We will organize them properly as cooperative areas, and we will realize a form in which various things can be linked under this architecture.

On the last page, while doing this, we have been conducting architecture design mainly in drones in fiscal 2021. From fiscal 2022, we will start to promote architecture design of mobility on the ground. In addition, while continuously promoting cooperation with related fields such as land-based base registry, 3D urban model (PLATEAU), GIS Tiles, Building OS, and next-generation trading infrastructure, we will basically finish the standardization of spatial ID by the end of 2024, and aim for full-scale operation in local urban suburbs in twenty twenty-five, and full-scale operation in urban areas in fiscal 2030. We will develop measures to spread such things from use cases for industry to use cases for general consumers, as in use cases. As for design and development, as in the middle, we will conduct demonstration and research, including missions, while conducting design and validation first, and then maintain the architecture in implementation. We will do so while considering these things.

That's all for my explanation.

Chairman Ishida: .

Then, would you like to ask any questions about the current explanation, such as "I am thinking about this"?

MURASE Member: Thank you very much. It was very helpful.

The second part on page 4 is about cooperative areas and competitive areas. For example, on page 17, the overall architecture is written, and a thin line is drawn here. Does it mean that the safety management system itself will be handled by the government, or there will be many modules such as the one you mentioned earlier in the safety management system, and some of them will be shared, and how should competition be considered? What is the best?

As we heard from Mr. Kuzumaki last time, each company has started it. We have something we want to do, and the competitors have something they want to do, and while we are making advance investments, I feel that we cannot do this unless we do it by force to a certain extent. Is it okay to think so?

Mr. Saito: Because it is I think this is a matter that should be properly decided by experts. I myself think that in a sense, safety will be properly decided from design, which is being promoted in Europe, and this time, the automated world, including IT, will all be connected. Everyone will be in the world of IoT. This is not something that each of us does on its own. On one side, safety, in places like Trust, should be decided by the country. On the other hand, in a sense, private sector is a third party organization, for example, public railway and electric power companies are public utilities. If we say that it is better to do it together in such places, we should throw it to such organizations, for example, accreditation and certification organizations, but I think that we should decide on the place where such things should be separately, based on the assumption that it should be.

In private sector, we talk about safety, and in a sense, we make it as we like, and there are ups and downs in talks about safety and Trust. Originally, we should have them all. Therefore, the safety management system I am talking about here is not just a system, but something that is embedded in it, a framework for how to make it and how to do it, and in a sense, the architecture of some parts of the software. If we do not implementation it, I believe that the world, which will be powered by robots that are all connected by AI today, will be a disaster when the infrastructure is built. Therefore, I am saying that it is fine to proceed with it now because there is no actual damage, but we should aim for it eventually. Therefore, in the next era after the current system, I will accumulate experience and do something agile. Next time, for example, we will embed these things in a version upgrade one by one, and gradually improve the quality of the system. I think it is necessary to do such a thing. In fact, it is natural to say that the experts should do it that way, and it is strange to say that I will do it this way, but that is one meaning.

One more thing, I am talking about disaster response. To tell the truth, it was ruined by the Great East Japan Earthquake. Everyone thought from an infrastructure point of view, and after all, this is the infrastructure, and this is the prerequisite. When they started the prerequisite, it was ruined. In fact, it is necessary to decide on this from the perspective of the disaster victims, by taking a holistic view of what will happen and what the worst case will be. To put it the other way around, the government must think from the perspective of the disaster victims of the Great East Japan Earthquake, in this case, the residents, that this is absolutely necessary for the world of safty and security. I have only talked about mobility, but in the case of the disaster earlier, the assumption is that there is an infrastructure in which electricity and drones can fly. But in fact, this may not be the case. We must assume what we will do in that case. To put it the other way around, if disaster response and crisis management, including the infrastructure here, do not issue directives, various infrastructures cannot work together. I think that is how the whole thing will be built.

Japan has various experience points, and if we had created systems without permission, the world of control and the world of information would have ended up in tatters. We are good at improvement activities, so Japan is good at agile. However, because the vision is not firm, the directions are scattered, and the results are not clean. Therefore, I said at the beginning that if DADC decides the direction first, decides the architecture, and then repeats improvements in an agile manner, it will not be a good direction for Japan as a whole. At that time, the essential condition is how to capture data that can understand the three reality principle, the field, the actual thing, and the reality. Then, if I say this while capturing the facts where everyone can improve, maybe everyone can be persuaded. I mean that I said at the beginning that it is necessary for this base in terms of data.

MURASE Member: .

There is the Robot Delivery Association, and I would like you to give a lecture there in order to unite the thoughts of each company.

Chairman Ishida: Go ahead.

Mr. Shirasaka: Since we are in

Therefore, as Director Saito said, the system I mentioned is not just about IT or such a system, but about a mechanism. In other words, something that was not expected at all was connected. Moreover, organization, which created the newly connected thing, and organization, which originally created the existing thing, are different organization. Something went wrong here. We have to think about how to deal with this, how to improve it quickly, and how to make it safe to move next time. How to ensure the safety of things that cannot be assumed in advance as a society. This has not yet made much progress in the field of research, but we have to create some kind of mechanism.

Therefore, it says safety system, but it is a very difficult problem, and we have no choice but to cooperate. And this is not only in the same field, but also in different fields, as mentioned by Director Saito. It is connected in a multimodal manner. And it is not always connected, but it is connected temporarily at a certain purpose. This is a feature of the system of systems, so if it is always connected, it needs to be connected before it is connected. But if it is always connected, it is connected to us, and if it is always connected, it is connected to us. The same system is multi-purpose, multi-modal, and multi-domain, and we think about how to ensure safety. Therefore, when we think about a mechanism that can be connected and guarantee safety, we have to discuss where we should cooperate across industries. This is a very difficult place, and we have to consider this when we aim for a connected society and Society5.0.

MURASE Member: That is the common part, the part of co-creation. It costs a lot and needs a head, so if it doesn't, it may be losing to China and the United States.

Mr. Momota: Regarding the first Issue setting, pain points, and problems in said, the relationship with the U.S. and the PRC is extremely secure. In fact, Level 4 vehicles in automated driving, which were advanced in the U.S., have become mainstream in the U.S., so I think many people would like to know what kind of discussion will take place now about how to cooperate with U.S. GAFA, Chinese BAT, and Government Cloud from the Minister in charge of Administrative Reform Okada's perspective when international standardization, de facto, becomes the foundation, such as the basic system architecture on page 20, which you have just presented, and what extent is being discussed as Japan-specific standards.

Mr. Saito: Because it is : When we talk about crisis management, it is not a matter to be open about how much we will do. Even semiconductors, including economic security, will be included in the end. Trust and safety will always be included in the end in the case of chips. There is no such thing in Japan now, and various things are being worked on, but there are negative opinions about what we are doing now, but when we really think about the future, we must share with everyone what we will be like in the end, even if it is not now. I think this is a different story.

Mr. Momota: Regarding the first Issue setting, pain points, and problems in So there are parts where we have to cooperate.

Chairman Ishida: .

Miyashiro Member: Thank you, , I'm sorry to have dropped you from a very large scale to a micro one, but as you can see on page 20, I would like to hear your opinions on two points about safety. One is to prepare for disasters. If there are things that don't work at all just once a year, like disaster risk management training, I think it is very important to understand how to use the system in normal times and evaluate it. So, I would like to talk about how to use it in normal times by cutting it out even in small units, cutting it out in modules, and increasing the degree of implementation. For example, in terms of energy, if we don't see how many mobile power sources we can cover for how many hours and how many households we can save if the power source might turn off, we don't have the wisdom to know where and how to focus on it. In that case, I think we need to think about how much we should be prepared to use it as a mobile power source on a daily basis. In particular, when we go to local cities, it often happens that we can't actually use it even if we are asked to buy many things, so I thought it would be necessary to link the system to what we do without noticing, which incorporates such a concept of disaster risk management, including mobility. I would like to ask you about that. implementation use cases

What I was thinking about safety and Trust may be that the standards are not uniform little by little. For example, I think it depends on road environments, social environments, and natural environments, but the concept of safety and Trust in cities and the Trust of information in society, which is seen and known in local areas, seem to be different from the sense of the field. I would like you to give us some suggestions on how to standardize and verbalize them, and how much discretion can be put in each local area as a practice. Now, it is usually difficult to talk about such things on the ground.

Mr. Saito: Because it is In general, there is no commonality. Each person is different. Therefore, I think that it is necessary to properly set up requirements for each local and distributed system, although it is not a customization of what to do in the community, which was also discussed here, in Architecture design in the future. Therefore, it is not a matter of doing it from the top down, but in a sense, it is a style to think about tools and tricks for it.

This is probably the same on a global basis. For example, when people who have different cultures from the Japanese have various cars from automated driving, such as drones, as infrastructure, the ways of using them are different. However, we should make sure to capture the common parts as "things." In addition, although it is not Happiness as I said earlier, there are a few more data layers where residents think about such things, and it is probably correct to say that EBPM policies will be developed while utilizing such things in each area. I think we should consider the layer structure properly and think about the future depending on each region, although we do not have much resolution now.

In the first story, normal times and emergencies are basically divided into two. This story is also used for defense, but it is not collected by defense, but collected as a whole. So, we need to think about it in a way that it can be used both in normal times and in emergencies. On the other hand, if it becomes an add-on cost, it will be a new cost for responding to disaster risk management. We need to be prepared for it, so we need to increase it. But, we need to have regional support so that it can actually be used. We can use it for other purposes. So, first of all, we need to talk about digital systems. Next, we need to talk about what to do with practical physical equipment and devices. I think we should talk about CPS, a total system of cyber-physical systems, and design as a social system. Here, we need to talk about manufacturers and the national government. In response to emergencies, disasters, and the Great East Japan Earthquake, we need to talk about whether the current number is sufficient. If it is not enough, we need to respond with some kind of preferential treatment. Otherwise, there is a high probability that another validation will occur. Even at that time, the disaster victims had a hard time, and we will never have a disaster like the Great East Japan Earthquake again. I think we should think about what we will do to prevent it. This is my personal opinion.

Chairman Ishida: Yamamoto, please.

Member: At , I would like to ask a few questions after I make a comment. The bottom one is very important, and as Director Saito said, the top one is an application. We need to firmly recognize the purpose of Issue and prepare the data to use it. As Director Murakami said at the beginning, it is very important whether the country has sufficient data, such as how to attach it to the data. For example, 3D maps are also handled by Dynamic Map Infrastructure, and mobility information is handled by Toyota Corporation. You mentioned disasters, but everyone will cooperate in the event of a crisis. Now, ITS Japan is asking everyone to provide it so that we can create a "Traveled Road Map." In the case of normal times, mobility companies are making huge costs to change their own design and provide it. There are some cases where normal times will provide such things and our assets for free. I think one major Issue is whether the country can develop this area properly, but is there any discussion or solution for this area?

Mr. Saito: Because it is I haven't said that yet, but basically, this is a total architecture in which everyone is provided with what they need, and there are incentives and enforcements, but without a model to return them, it will be difficult. Is it okay for each company to spend money on it just by using it at their own place? Then, if they use it somewhere and get some fees or subsidies, if they make a map and maintain and repair it, it would be good to add extra money to it. So, I think we can make a plan to use it in cooperative areas, not competitive areas, and use it to build a map base, while considering what to do with such a space in smart cities, including current road maps and traffic information. There is such a story, but conversely, we have to decide whether to use it unconditionally or in a contract under certain constraints.

Therefore, if you think that everyone can use it freely if it is written here, it is a big mistake. It is an access right. If you do not specify what kind of people can use it, on the contrary, there will be talk of falsification at the bottom. Therefore, Trust's story and security's story will be secured, and on the contrary, you will provide a map like this, and if you maintain and maintain it, you will capture information that has changed in such a mechanism, and use it, for example, to refresh the upper area. On the contrary, if you do not conclude a contract to do it properly with each other, you will be crumpled by throwing something stupid. Even if people below you talk about a map like this, it is really OK. This will come up in Trust's story. It will be decided in the contract, so it is written briefly, but it is quite difficult to realize it.

Member: At In the contract, if it is used and benefits are obtained, there will be feedback. We will consider such a thing.

Mr. Saito: Because it is If we don't think about such things and make them win-win and beneficial to each other, if there is no way to reflect them in the future, this model will become a story of what benefits it has just by being taken out, so I think we must think about it together. That is what I am talking about.

Chairman Ishida: Go ahead.

Advisor Mr. Itoh: Thank you very much for In relation to what Senior Managing Director Yamamoto just said, when trying to design such a system, I think it is necessary to have a fairly capable system architect who can design after imagining redundancy, scalability, and evolvability. On the other hand, when I talk to companies, I immediately hear that they lack resources. I guess it means artificial in Japanese, but even if I want to remove the artificial and put a person in System design, I imagine that it will be difficult to put the person out of the company even if it is necessary for society because I am putting the person in a place that is profitable. What kind of ways can I do about that?

Mr. Saito: Because it is Right now, we are talking to them and gathering the necessary members two or three days a week. This is one thing. Also, there is a dedicated software development here, so we are talking about recruiting such people. The other thing is cooperation with the academic community. We will do this together, and we will gather everyone to build this area as an infrastructure, even two days a week. We will organize the whole thing while bringing it together, and we will give each of them a mission and bring them together. This is the current method.

So, as you said, it is very difficult to recruit and gather people to DADC, and people on secondment, who are excellent, are busy, so people on secondment can get that knowledge. We have people who bring it together, and we discuss it together, and we create a place for co-creation, a space for creation together, not fighting, and we share our vision. This is where DADC stands today.

A lot of drones and spatial information is coming around, and various experts and teachers in the academic world are interested in participating, so it is gradually getting bigger and more active. So, I spread this to people in private sector, and I talk about how to use it to improve our own businesses, and they will probably participate. This is beneficial for everyone. If we had been doing it vertically, it would be much better if we could connect it horizontally as well. In terms of DX itself, isn't it impossible for a single company to do DX today? If we don't do DX as an industry, including infrastructure, we will not be able to achieve global competitiveness or the competitiveness of the industrial world in Japan, and it will be difficult for each company to do such a thing, so they will definitely cooperate in such a thing. In a persuasive sense, DADC, IPA, and the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry are also doing it, but I think that if we accumulate results one by one and show them, we will gradually get together and grow taller and thicker. We are doing such an activity now. It is still a long way off, but I would like you to participate.

Advisor Mr. Itoh: Thank you very much for . If you can cooperate, of course.

Katsumaki Member:

Mr. Saito: Because it is I think that's right. The reliable thing I said earlier is that you don't know who submitted the data, so for example, if you get data without a signature or anything, you can't rely on it. If there is a proper creator there and there is data, it will be returned there. It is feedback. So, you don't necessarily want to give me the exact data, but you want to give me the data anyway. In fact, if you say that it was wrong after checking it, you return the "I will correct it" from the upper layer to the lower layer. So, for example, if you fly it in drones and see it in the image, you should return the corrected information. First, you can't fly it in such a place when you make the initial plan, so after making a flight plan like this, you actually fly it and there was something strange. You have to reflect it, so I'm going to tell you to return it.

So, in the upper and lower layers, let's create a mechanism that can be used well as a whole, including refresh. Trust at that time was saying that it would be difficult if someone without a signature created it and used it without permission. I just talked about unreliable data, not the content.

Katsumaki Member: I think it is very important to collect the industry's data in the form of returning it and opening it up. At first, the industry is divided, and everyone takes the data on their own, and the industry collects it. Among them, there may be data that will be disadvantageous to them later if they do not share it internationally, there may be data formats, and there may be data that can be handled by themselves. I think the meaning of cooperation is to collect the data from each industry as much as possible.

Mr. Saito: Because it is It is the cooperation of the industry, and it is easy to do it when the intention of the industry comes out. We can talk between the private and public sectors if private sector wants to do such a thing as his intention, but even if we say that we will make it common in the industry among those who do not want to do it, what are you saying?

Katsumaki Member: I think that creating only rules there and letting them compete there so that they can sell a lot of data will function as promotion of utilization.

Chairman Ishida: , I would like to ask you a question. The people who have the data are still overwhelming in the country. It is the same with the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan and the Meteorological Agency. Not only the country, but also the city is known by the City Planning Basic Survey under the City Planning Act. To what extent are such people enthusiastically participating?

Mr. Saito: Because it is Geospatial Information Authority, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism are all participating in the layer there.

Mr. Takijima: With regard to the , for example, at the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, there is a concurrent position with Digital Agency, and we discuss it together as a team, and they have the PLATEAU data, so I would rather use it.

Chairman Ishida: In that sense, you have a huge amount of data. It is a sad reality that even within the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, it is not always possible to use it in a unified manner. However, I think it is very important to lead the way by using it smoothly with the help of Mr. Saito's center.

Mr. Saito: Because it is That's right. The vertical division within ministries and agencies is a bit difficult for us, too. If we decide on an architecture at a place like this and say let's all do it together, that is also a Digital Agency in the same direction.

Chairman Ishida: , I don't know if it is analog or not, but it is really okay to use only digital. One very impressive story about that is that right after 3.11, I heard a story from Mr. Tachiya, a very capable and famous mayor of Soma City, who set up the disaster response headquarters five minutes after the disaster. For about six months after that, he properly reported what he had done and what information he had obtained, and he created a great archive. Mr. Tachiya said that the computer system was completely useless because there was no electricity. What was good was that the three largest systems were a paper map and a digital camera that recorded what was discussed on a white board. How do you put that point of view?

Also, I thought it was interesting that the initial response to a disaster is very important, but sometimes the head of the headquarters cannot come right away. In that case, I think it was Yamanashi Central Hospital, and the doctors there started the first mission box, and the first person to open it was the head of the headquarters. The card says, "As the head of the headquarters, what should you do first? Do this? Do that?" It seems to be a method used by FEMA in the United States. It is extremely analog, but how do you think about the fusion of digital and this kind of thing?

Mr. Saito: Because it is Thinking is, if we think from the perspective of the disaster victims, what should we do when there is no power source? In that case, there must be a story like this. Everyone thinks from the infrastructure, so they want to do it digitally, but even if they don't do it, they have to think about it. So, this time, what should we do from the perspective of the residents, not specializing in digital? So, for example, just like the story of the coexistence of AI and robots, there is a world of coexistence with digital. On the contrary, there will be training on what to do in what cases of the disaster victims. So, what should we do if we do it digitally and it really stops? We have to do training based on the assumption that it will stop. Are we going to say that all of this will be completed in digital in digital society? Otherwise. In the event of a disaster, in what cases we have to do this kind of thing at the disaster victims' place, we have to think properly from the opposite side, and we will do it with a digital system, but we will make it with an analog system. This is a story we have to think about from the opposite side.

I will talk about architecture because of the D in DADC. The current extension of use cases is that it can be used from there to here, but it cannot be used here. Unless we do this, it is impossible to know whether you will do everything or I will do it. If such a perspective is not properly included in the architecture, it will be like the earthquake disaster, where nuclear power plants are considered up to several kilometers, but other than that, they are not assumed. On the contrary, in the case of something happening, what to do in the event of such a thing happening must be assumed. I think that is the essential story of Architecture design.

Chairman Ishida: First Mission Box is used every time a disaster drill is conducted. The letters are small, and I didn't know where to put it. I think such things are quite important. I think it was really well done.

Chairman Ishida: , please.

Mr. Suda: Thank you very much for telling me so many interesting stories.

I would like to share some of my impressions and comments. One is that it is very important to use multi-domain and multi-modal technologies well. However, I believe that this is a very new tool called drones, so it will be easy to consider this kind of thing. If we are to do something that is already established to a certain extent, rather than something completely new on the ground, it will not be easy to do because of the various vested interests and ties that have been mentioned. So, I would like to ask what kind of methods are being considered to deal with this.

My impression is that, as already mentioned, it is very important in the event of a disaster, but it is often said that a disaster-only system cannot be used in the event of an emergency. I believe so, and I think it is important how the system works in conjunction with daily activities.

Chairman Ishida: The first question is not for Mr. Saito, but if there is anyone who would like to answer, I would like to ask you.

Mr. Saito: Because it is The first issue is quite a bit about what to do with the vested rights of the Digi-cho.

Mr. Takijima: With regard to the . I think the methodology is quite difficult in terms of where to start when creating a new system, not just this one. In that sense, we are also trying various things, such as writing DX from a new place in the same way as other DX in the Digi-cho, and building an overall architecture so that other DX will also go.

Mr. Saito: Because it is I think the disaster earlier is a good example in that sense. We should decide what to do about it at the beginning and do it like this. At that time, if we try to talk about multi-domain and multi-modal cooperation, there is a story that in order to work well together, we must create a system like this. Where there is such an operation management story that is currently operating, there is something to be embedded in it, and where there is no such story, I think we will create such a system in the future. I think that strategy and tactics are necessary.

The second story is true. Therefore, we should not set boundaries so much in normal times and emergencies, and make it possible to use them. The story of devices may be special, but the story of various data utilization should be the same. For example, the story of data collection should be the same. So, it is not just a story of normal times, emergencies, and special disasters. We should take it from usual, use it in normal times and use it in disasters in the same way. I think it will be a different form. I think that is true. I would like to think about this with everyone.

Chairman Ishida: Thank you, Mr. Nagumo.

Member of Nagumo: Thank you, Thank you very much for your very interesting story.

Aside from the discussion of technology, I think we have reached a point where it will not be solved unless we do something about the layers of policy making and political decision-making. I don't know whether this is within the scope of the Digi-cho or not, but I thought that we need to discuss the decision-making method of using human brains to create collective intelligence somewhere in the architecture. I would like to ask how you feel about this.

Chairman Ishida: ?

Mr. Saito: Because it is That's right.

Chairman Ishida: That's true.

Mr. Saito: Because it is That's right, I feel the same way, but don't comment too much here.

Chairman Ishida: That's true, but when it comes to specifics, it becomes more difficult.

Mr. Saito: Because it is , I will make a solid proposal. I would like to make a proposal that it should be made by private sector. Leaders, decisions cannot be made without people making decisions. Usually, BPR becomes a death march, and if there is no one to make a decision, it will go around and around no matter how many times you try, so the decision maker must ensure who makes the decision.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Takijima: With regard to the residents the starting point, and creating a dashboard with everyone, but I think the first step is to align our perspectives on what the starting point is for everyone to make a decision. It is difficult to decide everything suddenly.

Member: At In the comments by Mr. Nagumo just now, when we are talking about what should be decided, we are talking about use cases, the customer's perspective, and pain points in the first, second, third, and fourth meetings. We are going to decide what to do, and start with pain points, and finally do various things in a comprehensive manner, but I think we should add more and more agile in the application.

First of all, this time we are going to do this part, and such things are being discussed in the Planning Subcommittee of the National Land Council. Let's do disasters, let's do medical care, let's do transportation, let's do nursing care. Then, the way we are thinking about this is, first of all, we have to stop the declining birthrate, so we have to send women to the countryside, and we have to raise children in the countryside. This is what Mr. Koda is doing. In this overall policy, who is going to decide on transportation, taking this place as use cases, taking disasters, and taking this? If we don't decide on this first, the architecture will be just a pie in the sky without use cases, and the lower part is fine, but the upper part will be added more and more from the people's perspective. I think this is necessary.

Member of Nagumo: Thank you, One thing that I am worried about is that when the unexpected connections are increasing at an accelerated rate, as Professor Shirasaka said, the locus of responsibility is gradually becoming blurred. Therefore, the way to pursue risk and the way to share risk have not yet been formulated into an equation, and I think that the question of whose responsibility everyone is responsible for and what kind of decisions they are going to make is a cause for hesitation. Therefore, in this era, when multi-domain and multi-purpose are all connected, and unexpected risks occur, I don't know if everyone takes risks, but my impression is that architecture does not survive without creating such a single equation.

Chairman Ishida: That's right. That's right, but it would be very difficult to suddenly attack there.

Member Shirasaka: * * That is exactly right, and it is not easy. Therefore, both DADC and METI have set up a separate working group on how to ensure safety governance in an era where new and various things are dynamically connected. Actually, it is not limited to mobility. It will occur in all fields, so it must be done as a mechanism somewhere.

Mr. Nagumo, I believe you have already understood this, but unless we change the current laws and penal provisions, we will not be able to do this anymore, so we will have to do this while inviting law professors and others, so we will have to do this in parallel. If we cannot do this until we finish it, we will not be able to move forward at all, so as Mr. Yamamoto said, we will have to decide on the use cases from which we will work, and we will have to do what is commonly necessary with what is commonly necessary. I believe we are actually doing this.

Chairman Ishida: MaaS and the support project for smart cities. It is not the case that all of them are completed, but rather, there are only a few things that have been acquired, but still, such things have been developed. In that sense, I don't know if it can be said to be use cases, but since there are actual examples, I think there are sufficient approaches to design and visualize Trust and incentives, which are keywords.

Mr. Shirasaka: Since we are in said, and I think it is very important to analyze whether this is working well or where it has started to work based on the image of, for example, DADC. Therefore, last time I did a part, but I didn't include the content, but I was allowed to do it. demonstration projects started in various places, and there were really many various activities throughout the country, so it would be a great waste if it ended up just being a demonstration there.

Chairman Ishida: , that is almost the case. What should we do about it?

Mr. Shirasaka: Since we are in , I think one of the roles of architecture is to analyze it from a common point of view and to think about how it can be developed horizontally. If we create opportunities to do such things, I think there will be many useful things that are being done in various area.

Member of Nagumo: Thank you, might not have worked well. If there was an agreement among residents that they would be able to take risks by using strategic special zones to select a supercity, they thought that they would be able to overcome the regulation of the country and do various things only in that local government. Supercity is a condition for simultaneous implementation of digital solutions in five areas, so I think it is naturally parallel to the discussion of this architecture. What was the actual situation? Among the proposals made by each local government, there were few deep proposals that were really meaningful as risk-taking, and each local government was required to resubmit them. Therefore, I think it was not verbalized at that time, but it was difficult to recognize that residents would take risks in response to the fact that we do not know what will happen in an architecture that connects the five areas, and I think that the framework and the idea could not be neatly organized.

This time, two local government were selected as Super Cities. They are Osaka and Tsukuba. This is exactly what is being talked about, a world in which multiple risks can occur at the same time. Therefore, I think that use cases is the first one to be selected. What do you think?

Chairman Ishida: .
I'm sorry. This is an important discussion, so I would like to continue it, but there are other important discussions, so I have to stop here.

The second point is that we have prepared the outline, so I would like you to discuss the outline, including the current situation, and how it is good.

Please explain this, Mr. Takijima.

Mr. Takijima: With regard to the : We have been working in the form of Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap, but this time we would like to change our clothes a little as part of the "Digital Transportation Society Promotion Strategies."

As Murakami said at the beginning, the completed version will not be made suddenly, but it will be a snapshot of May and June 2022, and I believe it will be a milestone that will be progressed while debating.

I would like to briefly introduce the content. In the introduction, I will explain the background. We have been working to promote automated driving under Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap. As for social implementation, as Mr. Nagumo mentioned, it has been established in the form of a super city in some places, and there are cases like Mr. Sakaimachi's, but going back to our starting point, I would like to keep in mind how to integrate the demand side, the service supply side, and the upper and lower body in how each person lives in their daily lives.

So far, as I said, we have conducted technical experiments in implementation, but there are still not many cases where services can be continuously delivered to residents.

The reason why it did not go well is that in the end, it had to be established as a business model, and investment progressed rapidly during the period of population expansion and economic growth based on the logic of the supply side. However, in a situation where this is not always the case, it is necessary to establish a certain level of cooperative areas while doing so, particularly from the perspective of the residents. In mobility, mobility is a foundation on which services will be based, and we would like to consider not only people's flow but also distribution, including drones today, in total.

As for the next three points, we discussed from the beginning about an approach that considers the lives of each resident from the perspective of society as a whole, from the perspective of services, from the perspective of customers, and from the perspective of G to business-to-consumer and G to G to C. As you discussed earlier, it is necessary to include not only digital but also legal systems of the entire social system, so at the end, I would like to be aware of when and how services can be delivered to the people in accordance with the time frame, rather than various initiatives moving in isolation.

Based on the content announced in Chapter II, I would like to ask what it means to solve the Issue problem from the perspective of each person's livelihood. I have received comments from Mr. Nagumo and others on domestic and overseas cases, and I will introduce them.

In terms of overseas cases, it is not that Japan is terrible or bad, but the cases that have been successful overseas are cases that are "citizen-centered" and are decided within the very democratic logic, and it is decided that everyone wants to do what they do, so I was introduced to cases such as Sweden.

When I think about what I can get as a suggestion, I would like to say that the pain point is to solve the problem of this person who is really in trouble, and I think this is the same in Sakaimachi, but I would like to start with that. In addition, when I first start, I would like to think about the unit small and start from there, I would like to obtain everyone's agreement on making it visible by using data, I would like to work together with all stakeholders, including residents, on the process to solve the problem, and I would like to think about the boundary line of mutual assistance and cooperative areas, including abstract things.

My next question is (2). In Japan, there are cases where implementation is being started, such as in Sakaimachi. I wonder what we can do to expand this. As Professor Shirasaka commented earlier, what are you doing in Sakaimachi? You use both automated driving vehicles and run buses in the town. You provide services from the perspective of the residents. You did it at an extremely fast speed. In terms of learning, it is the beginning of pain points. In addition, mobility has value for human needs as a base, but on top of that, there are medical care, education, and mobility for something. We will tackle problems from the beginning. We also use big data from mobile phones to see where people are moving from and where they are moving to. We have created a sense of understanding through visualization. The cost is Issue, but it is important to consider how to earn money for the whole town.

This is a summary of the contents presented by Mr. Koda and Mr. Ishimaru and the comments made by everyone in Chapter III on how to implement it.

The essence of Mr. Koda's presentation is how to reflect the voices of residents in the business model when working from the perspective of each person's life. As you just mentioned, digital alone does not work. I think it is a design that includes analog. Thinking from the perspective of residents means that it is necessary to work together with area leaders and people who will be in between in several years. In particular, in order to balance childcare and work, there are demands for mobility such as transportation to and from cram schools.

The suggestion I can get is that it is necessary to create a mechanism as a community to incorporate the silent majority, which will make people who do not appear and those who are patient to participate. I heard that the UI and UX that does not make digital feel digital is also important for social acceptability, and that it is a fusion of digital and analog. I heard that they are paying attention to the problems of the child-rearing generation.

Regarding the presentation by Mr. Ishimaru, I believe that he talked about how to reduce costs and how to take the upside. He said that mobility can be captured as one of the touchpoints to respond to the needs of area. He also said that there is a perspective of a wider economic zone. While working with the residents on social implementation, automated driving was demonstrated, but it was switched to the provision of on-demand mobility, and various discussions were held from the residents' perspective.

The implications are that we need to properly carry out narratives on how they will be useful for area, and that it is important to separate implementation from demonstration and social experiments. Without taking into account the will of the residents, demonstration experiments can be carried out in the place where it is located, but continuity cannot be guaranteed. As you said earlier, demonstration experiments is now being carried out across the country. In order to continue horizontal development, the will of the residents is also important, although it is not necessarily a matter of rushing around.

After that, I believe that Commissioner Saito and others made presentations today on how to create a mechanism for horizontal development, including such excellent cases and cases that did not go well.

The first is that each area will decide what to aim for as a goal. It is based on the pain points of each person's life, so I think it is quite difficult for the central government to draw one goal. Then, rather than doing nothing, I think it is the role of the government to create a foundation so that everyone can have various options.

Moving on to the next page, I would like to ask about the significance of setting objectives and indicators to support decision making. However, it is not the case that such discussions proceed to reach some goals by simply ignoring them. I believe that it is very important to present a goal that is easy to define through dialogue in area, in the form of the well-being indicators announced by Mr. Nagumo. The second point is that it will be easier for residents to participate and work together by measuring and disclosing numerical values.

The third topic is "Architectural Thinking for Initiatives." You mentioned that we need to take a bird' s-eye view of the entire purpose we have set. We need to think in a systems approach. We need to think in terms of meaning, time, and space. We need to set the purpose and goals properly. In addition, we need to consider the means and mechanisms separately. In order to maximize the effect as a cross-cutting system of systems, I believe this leads to today's discussion that it is important to separate cooperative areas and competitive areas and redeploy design.

(4) Regarding cooperative areas's view, I would like to reiterate that there is a high risk that investments will not be recovered in the end even if each market, or the market as a whole, in particular, including rural areas, is shrinking. Therefore, there are still small demands that cannot be scooped up due to the lack of profitability. This is not limited to mobility, as Mr. Murakami said at the beginning. Digital infrastructure will be necessary to match supply with demand and create supply in accordance with demand. A business model of mutual cooperation in joint investment will be necessary for what cooperative areas will need. As an example of environmental change in the mobility field, supply will match demand where demand matches supply due to population increase and population decrease. To be more specific, a pick-up car will match the convenience of passengers from where passengers wait for a bus that will come on time at the bus stop, and a world in which logistics move automatically in accordance with demand trends will emerge from a world in which goods move automatically in accordance with demand trends.

Regarding (2) "Structuring efforts to achieve social implementation," I would like to repeat this, but we will set objectives that can be agreed upon by all of you by placing pain points at the starting point of efforts. We will decide what we aim for at the beginning, so let's move forward while exchanging information while setting indicators.

Pain points cannot be solved by mobility alone, so it is necessary to recognize mobility as a touch point and consider a business model, use cases, including services on top of that, although there are various ways of saying it. There are also many similar parts written, but it is necessary to have people who maintain the "mechanism." Next, there is a common Issue that cannot be solved by the market alone, so it is necessary to consider whether to ease the regulation, whether to create a regulation, how to review the system, how to improve the system, and how to standardize the data. I believe that these are the roles of the government. As Mr. Kawabata said last time, I believe that it is also the role of the government to accumulate the logic of how to succeed and convey it as a narrative.

Finally, in Chapter V, it is summarized as "Current Public and Private Initiatives to Realize the Future Image of a Digital Transportation Society and Issue."

It is necessary to organize efforts linked to the demands of each person in each scene of life, not only in the field of road traffic but also in all multi-modes from walking to flying. However, since various things are being done by the public and private sectors, I would like to show what I want to be and what I am doing in 2022. The purpose is to solve the pain points of each person on page 5, and the mechanism is to develop the necessary environments for that. If you look at page 6, there are various purposes, common bases, and various means for each town or area.

As for the "Arrangement of the Current Status of Each Initiative," at the bottom of the middle, I would like to try to sort out who is currently doing what. As for the classification of the current initiatives, as shown in the figure at the bottom of page 6, as a means, various things are being done for various purposes. Please look at page 7. In terms of automated driving, the purposes are "safty and security daily life," "free use of time," and "convenient life that meets individual needs." In terms of rules, there is the Road Traffic Act, and procedures for relaxing standards related to demonstration experiments. In the data standards layer below that, there is talk about how to obtain data from traffic control systems, the utilization of road traffic big data, and how to obtain geographic data. In terms of infrastructure assets below that, there is talk about cyber security evaluation methods, as I mentioned earlier. At the bottom of the layer, measures such as mobile services for automated driving and private automated driving vehicles are being considered.

As the recognition of Issue, how to link the discussion of the perspective of strengthening industrial competitiveness with the discussion of the demand side toward the social implementation of automated driving, which we have been discussing for a long time, will be necessary in the future. For example, it is written about the realization of unmanned automated driving mobile services at 40 locations in twenty twenty-five, but what kind of meaning this has and how we need to discuss it, and behind the scenes, the competitiveness of the industry that provides these things is also necessary, so I would like to clarify the relationship with such things.

In terms of "(ii) MaaS," we will similarly classify mechanisms and mechanisms and examine what kind of Issue infrastructure and architecture need to be developed and continued efforts made in response to the current situation in which social systems are said to be advantageous to the existing supply side. We will also plot what kind of purpose, what kind of mechanism and mechanism, and what kind of means are being used to realize "distribution," "automatic delivery robots," "flying cars," and so on, so that we can see what kind of things are being done in each data connections.

In closing, I would like to say that it is necessary to make it easier for various efforts to cooperate with each other in the context of "Toward the Study of What Should Be in the Future." Rather than necessarily sorting out all of them, it would be better to make it easier for them to cooperate by making what they are doing more visible. In structuring our efforts, I would like to see us sort out items that tend to be mixed, such as mobile mode, services, technology, and systems, little by little.

That's all.

Chairman Ishida: .

Regarding the snapshot at this point in time, I believe it is a very important document because it is a launch pad, but I would like to hear your frank opinions. Anyone is fine.

Go ahead.

Member: At Last time, Mr. Ishida said that we would like to go with the title of "Digital Transportation Society." I would like to make two proposals. When you say "Future Transportation Society Strategies using Digital" or "Digital Transportation Society," I think you might think that we are creating digital transportation for the sake of digital. What we have been considering so far is, as you explained, use cases's purpose. As is the case with Mr. Saito's talk today, I think it would be better if digital does not come to the forefront so much. digital transformation is a transformation using digital as a powerful driver. That is one.

In addition, I think it would be better to retain the term "ITS" in some form. For example, after "Strategies for Promoting a Transport Society through the Use of Digital," I would like to add the current sub-title "Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap." The reason for this is that, as you know, the World Conference on ITS was held in Yokohama in 1994, and Japan sent ITS to the world at that time. In the world, ITS is recognized at present, with ITS America and ITS Indonesia. Looking at the EU and EC, they are surely creating roadmaps and scenarios. As Counselor Takijima said, we will eventually reduce this to a solution, and we will provide services by filling in these parts, but I think this scenario is included in the sub-title, which is Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap. I would like to give you two opinions. It is by no means the ITS of ITS Japan.

Chairman Ishida: .

Miyashiro-san, please.

Miyashiro Member: Thank you, .

I believe that the items or words that have been created are exactly what they are, and I also think that how to grasp the content, how to cut it, and how to analyze it are important. For example, of all the things that have been done in Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap so far, of course, we must continue to make use of it in the future, and if there is something that is core, there are things that will work well by putting the residents' perspective on it as an extension of what has been done. Another is that there may be things that are missing here, and I felt that only when there is a reflection from the residents' perspective in validation, it will be a scenario in which ITS will continue to develop, inheriting a good tradition in a sense. Therefore, I think that the cutting edge of the current situation will be a more in-depth discussion, or a kind of opinion will be expressed by everyone.

When I thought that there was actually a similar story about MaaS, Mr. Ishida mentioned that there were many demonstration cases. Among them, there were cases from the perspective of residents, and of course, there were cases where companies themselves or business operators created models they wanted to do and how residents would participate. While reviewing these cases, I feel that there is a need for a method to analyze the existing cases mentioned earlier in use cases, including what is working and what is not working. I am not familiar with automated driving, but I think there are quite a few things from such a perspective.

On the other hand, when it comes to the perspective of residents, I would like to make two points. One is that areas that have not been covered by the perspective of residents and that have not been well cared for will be reduced. To that end, we will utilize the power of digital technology to visualization data and provide services there. At the same time, if we look at the total amount of traffic and movement, regardless of whether it is good or not, an automobile-centered society will occur in rural areas. In that case, unless we properly define the value of reducing, for example, 10% and 20% in the total amount, the value from the perspective of residents may not be conveyed to local communities or may not be accepted by transportation operators. I hope that we can create a MaaS world in which we can see what value the perspective of residents creates, what opportunities there are, and a scenario in which the entry of a new servicer will be beneficial to operators.

Another point is that from the perspective of the residents, for example, the value that has been cultivated in terms of safe operation by business operators and on-time operation may be better to be done in a more flexible manner. I hope that feedback to the business operators' perspective when done from the perspective of the residents will provide some direction.

Lastly, I believe that there will be discussions on how to train and secure key players. Bus and taxi drivers are aging, and in some regions, there are local government and taxi companies with a mean age of 70. As I mentioned before, it is also important how long they can drive and provide services. Also, residents with driving skills and people who are transported for welfare projects will be included in the service network, and the network will be needed in each region as a whole. I somehow think that Japanese MaaS, particularly in the regions, will be created in the sum of such things. In that case, what kind of people will be responsible for visualization, and how to ensure safety and Trust will be included in the architecture, and a world view of digital logistics will be necessary. I would like to comment on this as a direction for development.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Momota, please.

Mr. Momota: Regarding the first Issue setting, pain points, and problems in , and I think it has become very good. However, as you pointed out, instead of the joint presentation, no matter what the name and subtitle are, I feel weak because it says strategies. As an overall diagram of the digital transportation society, there are people in the society, and on top of that, there are various industries including the automobile industry. The discussions so far have been built up by the technological innovation of the automobile-related industries, such as automated driving's CASE and MaaS, and their positions should not change. I think that is the original lower body and legs.

On top of that, although it is due to my profession, I have been meeting with various people about the voices of the automobile industry and neighboring industries. For the past one or two weeks, I have been talking with various people quite closely. I have talked with executives, executives, mid-level employees, young engineers, major companies, mid-level employees, various suppliers, various dealers, distribution companies, automobile manufacturers, and various people. This is a story that has been open, so it is almost the same thing. Anyway, the best thing is that the world is now carbon-neutral. The industry is saying so, too. It is because of regulation, and it is also because of the situation in Europe. However, to be honest, most people say it is a matter of conservancy, like automated driving, sharing, and DX in area society. Because we have done various things in the once-in-a-century transformation of the automobile industry, and we have conducted demonstration experiments, but many people say it is impossible to change. In short, I realize that it is really difficult to change the industrial structure of the automobile industry itself, or to change society or move everyone. That is why I have high expectations for Digital Agency.

So, in the end, everyone is hesitant and conservative. Also, young engineers often say that if they are told, they will do it. If they show us the goal, we have a track record of doing it. They are always ready to go, but they don't say it, and if they want to do it, they will hit us on the head, so please sort this out. Even if there are talks about architecture in various systems today, the time is ripe and everyone is thinking of doing it. So, I'm sorry to be an abstract argument, but I feel that we will support the country's determination to motivate everyone. Even if there are various ways to express it, I feel that if we do it, based on the architecture and other things mentioned in the discussion today, people will start with trial and error without making such a big change. Whether it is SIP-adus or MaaS, we have been doing it for a long time, so I think we will ask various people how to do it, how to show it, and how they feel about it. What do you think, Kuzumaki-san?

Katsumaki Member: In my opinion, Mr. Ishida also said that he would like to be particular about digital, and I think that data utilization and data connections are one of the major themes this time. automated driving is a means, so I have to change the story to one that I would like to do more data utilization, including private sector, in this time. At that time, one of the ways is how to use money. Until now, we have been talking about creating hardware, so it will be like creating new data. We will try to use more of private sector's existing data to provide various services, and after that, I think there will be various Issue, such as reliability, which you talked about earlier. It is necessary to solve such problems, and it is not possible to achieve them in just one or two years, but only at the five year level. I also feel that it is not possible to just do it on a trial basis. In that sense, you are right that the time is ripe, and I feel that I will be able to do many things that I want to do.

Chairman Ishida: I'm not particularly particular about digital, but rather about the transportation society.

Go ahead.

Mr. Saito: Because it is Transportation and transportation are one means. It is a tool, and it is said that what the Digi-cho is trying to advance is from daily life, but there is one story about where transportation and transportation are used in today's society. The conventional MaaS is more of a means of transportation, and it is said that it will change current transportation, but that does not make a business. Therefore, to put it the other way around, I think that the Digi-cho should assume a scene in daily life and cooperate with it from the point of what it will be used for. For example, if people who provide services in medical care need transportation when they move from medical care, it would be good if they could create a mechanism to cooperate digitally based on that scene. I think this is the starting line.

With regard to the ITS that you mentioned earlier, however, how should the axis of transportation be considered as infrastructure? With regard to various aspects of life today, and of course, when it comes to industrial competitiveness in logistics, there are logistics systems in places other than the Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association where goods are transported, and improving the efficiency of these systems is an extremely important position in transportation to enhance Japan's competitiveness, including the elimination of traffic congestion. Therefore, I think that it is impossible to draw a complete picture unless we clearly organize the discussions on where transportation is used in society today, what kind of infrastructure should be built for it, and how should it be linked to various services that use it.

Therefore, in the story of drones, we are assuming use cases, but in the end, we are picking up the story of how drones will be used in today's society in various fields in use cases. I think this story will be led by thinking about the entire system, such as where the transportation system is now, whether it is As-Is or not, where it is used, what Issue is, how to solve it, and how to solve it in the next ITS including automated driving. Were you discussing such a thing in ITS? What is it?

Member: At ITS Japan, we look at what kind of society there is, including seniors and women, with similar public and personal values, and when we ask what we need, we choose a use cases from a large category such as "We must have people move safely while moving," "We must move in an environmentally friendly manner," and "We must move in a way that is useful in disasters." Let's all do this together, and ITS Japan will do this.

From your question, ITS is "Intelligent Transport Systems." As you said, transportation, intelligent utilization of it, no one is thinking about a road transportation society like the one in Kojien. So, in that sense, ITS is very much this strategy, or how to utilize the current things that support this scenario.

Mr. Saito: Because it is , what Mr. Murakami and others have often said is that it is useless to use it from the viewpoint of infrastructure, so if you think from the opposite side, you can make it in total. In this talk, we will insert what we have been doing with ITS into it. So, to put it another way, if there are various scenes where transportation will be used, or stories about using it in people's lives and work, I think that what we need to do and what we want to do is to assume such things and how to do them.

There are many parts, but even so, it is not a customer journey, but if you want to earn income when you actually live, you have to work for a company. If you want to make a company that can win, you have to talk about distribution. If it is not remote, you have your own means of commuting, and what kind of "goods" and "things" you have to do in such a place. In terms of life, for example, there should be talk about how to do with such means of life, including daily life, so-called foods, and talk about health care. There should also be talk about how to insert such things, for example, in education, where society will eventually be like this. With such an image, how to think about transportation and infrastructure from the viewpoint of society, I think that this talk is about creating transportation and infrastructure by assuming various scenes, such as what should be done at the starting point of residents, business operators, and disaster victims I mentioned earlier. That is true.

Chairman Ishida: . It would be helpful if you could summarize it.

Mr. Momota: Regarding the first Issue setting, pain points, and problems in , I feel that most people are not in trouble because they are holding the Eiheiji-cho MaaS Conference. They are doing it as usual with their own cars. Therefore, when I talk about transportation in daily life, I am asked how to eliminate route buses in the public transportation Conference, but it is like we should do it because the number of n used by that person is small. In many cases, it does not become a pain point. Even in marginal settlements, I think it is OK to leave things as they are. In many cases, it is conservative to change. Therefore, as Eiheiji Town often says, please explain to the residents the changes in society that will be made in the future as much as possible, and they will be in trouble in the future. However, it seems difficult for local government to say that they will be in trouble in the future. Therefore, I think it is very strong that the reason why such things are necessary is to make the problems and pain points visible in a sense in each area in local government.

Chairman Ishida: , please. Next, Mr. Hidaka, please.

Koda Member: Thank you, .

I would like to make two points. First, I believe that it is necessary to clearly indicate which Issue and who live in which area the digital transportation society, including digital transformation, is being considered for social growth and social area, and which problems in which region will be tackled based on the lives of consumers.

The second point is that I believe that there was an exchange of opinions about what a quite visionary society like Doraemon would be like, but in the demonstration, for example, over about five years, milestones such as what kind of Issue will be solved for which area and for whom, what kind of growth will be promoted, and milestones for implementation will be clarified. I understand the vision, but I do not see the path how to achieve it. Someone used the term scenario, and I think that is very necessary. In addition, such a roadmap will naturally change, so I thought that it would be better to assume from the beginning when to review it.

Chairman Ishida: .

Next, Mr. Hidaka, please.

Hidaka Member: I am Hidaka of MaaS Tech Japan.

It was a really great achievement. I learned a lot from it, and I hope to be able to create such a society. However, I think it was a difference in focus because there were various times when automated driving and area could be included, and I don't think we could have sufficiently discussed transportation, especially MaaS.

The first three points are related, and Mr. Ishida is well aware of them, and I think they have been conveyed to the members of the Secretariat. The General Political Bureau is engaged in discussions on the project scheme and, broadly speaking, the industrial structure at the Re-Design of area Transportation. In terms of data, the Study Group on the Advancement of data connections in the transportation field has been participating the other day, so this area is related to the architecture discussion and data, so I would like to advance it in cooperation with them.

The second point is that I could not talk about MaaS itself so much, and it was my reflection. As for how MaaS will move in the world, as Mr. Miyashiro gave a presentation, there are still various efforts being made, including talks on decarbonization, energy policy, and area. I would like to refer to that part more. However, there are differences in Japanese characteristics and current conditions, so I would like to discuss them again. In this area, too, trends are rapidly changing, so I would be grateful if Mr. Digital Agency could continue to deal with them.

I am currently in Osaka Prefecture, and there is an expo in twenty twenty-five. There are discussions on supercities and wide-area digital cooperation in various parts of Japan, and there is a gap in our efforts. There is a gap, so I think it is necessary to present the guidelines this time, but some of them are actually moving forward, so if there is an opportunity for consideration in the future, I will invite players who are doing such things as guests, and I think we must avoid cooperation within Japan from scratch, such as reinventing the wheel, including cooperation with other ministries and agencies, so I would like to make a good arrangement. I am participating in MaaS Tech Japan this time, and the MaaS consortium called JCoMaaS is working hard as the secretariat, so I would like to aim for the development of Japan's digital transportation society in cooperation with such organizations.

Chairman Ishida: .

Thank you, Mr. Nagumo.

Member of Nagumo: Thank you, .

There is no sense of discomfort in the outline. However, there is one thing that I often discuss in smart cities and elsewhere. Although there is a tendency to start with pain points, there is a tendency to talk about life prolongation measures in declining birthrate and aging population society, particularly in an aging society. I feel that there is a tendency for dreams to disappear, and there is a diagram of backcasting in Director Saito's diagram. I think that it is better to think about it again. I often exchange information with the Finnish government, and we often look ahead to what the world of well-being will be like 20 years from now, and determine what technology is necessary, what companies are necessary, and what data is necessary in the form of backcasting from there. Therefore, if we start with pain points, no one will say no from the viewpoint of social acceptability, but on the contrary, it will be from below the surface to the surface, or it will be a life-prolonging measure, and it will be difficult to discuss social evolution or growth. Therefore, I feel that it is better not to write only pain points. Pain points need to be written, but at the same time as starting with pain points, I would be grateful if you could include a backcasting from the future image of well-being.

Chairman Ishida: .

Mr. Suda, please.

Mr. Suda: Basically, I think the topics that have already been discussed here are well organized. That is the case. However, in the case of Digital mobility, it is not necessarily about how to serve users. In fact, there are talks about energy and carbon neutrality, and I think there are talks about the usefulness of Digital mobility. I think it is necessary to touch on those points.

Another thing is that I do not see the connection with Public-Private ITS Concept and Roadmap very well. On page 7, there is the recognition of Issue, and I thought it would be necessary to explain more clearly how it is connected to the discussions this time.

In addition, I would like to ask how you will proceed with this in the future.

Chairman Ishida: , I have one last question. Thank you.

Mr. Takijima: With regard to the Issue, we have received quite a wide range of opinions, and it is quite difficult, but we will work on it in about one to two weeks, and we will have everyone look at it online again, so I believe that such a document will be fine. If it is still too late, we will have to play extra innings, but I believe that is the case.

In terms of the overall process, the method of decision making has changed from the time before Digital Agency, and the IT Promotion Office has disappeared. Therefore, we will consult with each ministry, obtain an agreement with each ministry, and make a decision as the government. There is a slight difference, but I believe that the process will be compiled as the entire government.

Director-General Murakami: The Document will now be poured into the inter-ministerial consultation process in the way that I explained from Takijima, and I would like to keep the process less ceremonial, so I will share this process in parallel, and I would like to hear your opinions.

In addition, I would like to discuss this internally, but I believe that various basic concepts and perspectives have been consistent throughout the four meetings. On the contrary, when backcasting from use cases, for example, the image of use cases has not been resolved, so if we have discussed this much, I would like to ask you to consider it in some form. I would like to discuss this thoroughly within the Secretariat, including whether to accept it or how to do it.

In my personal comment, you said that it would be data connections. So, if I imagine the understanding of that, it is that information processing, which could not be done without integrating all the systems in the past, can now be done on the Internet and data connections. In the West, it seems to be called dataspace, but it is possible to make a virtual computer that covers the entire society. As a result, the system can make various decisions before people's behavior. This is essential for a society in which supply must match demand. The dataspace has covered the real society first, and where to use it. And when investing in implementation, players will fall into the cooperative areas as Dr. Saito said today. So, I cannot draw a picture of who will do it, and I can see the direction, but implementation is not moving forward. I thought that this is what happens when the level of abstraction is raised so much.

In that sense, one of the keywords that we need to think about in the future is actually the area or scope of implementation. Is it to start with a small community, a local government unit, a certain type of business segment, or a wide focus from the beginning? First of all, there is no practice of what scope will be used to network the actual situation in which cooperative areas, competitive areas, and data will cover society first. So, I understand the logic, but I think it will be difficult to implement it. Through the four discussions, I felt that if such a thing becomes apparent, it will somehow move at once. The last point is my impression.

In any case, I would like to consult with you about the future.

Chairman Ishida: .

I would like to conclude with a brief comment on my impression.

It has only been two months, but I would like to thank you very much for actively receiving the opinions of many people and summarizing them in this way. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude.

Today, we had a lot of substantive discussions. The good thing was what is needed. That is the pain point now, and there is talk of well-being 20 years from now, so let's think about it from there. By doing so, I think there is a lot of infrastructure, such as securing totalness and positioning data for thinking about various things properly, but your opinion is that it is a wide infrastructure. I had the impression that it can be regarded as an infrastructure in a wide sense, including not only physical facilities but also acceptance living customs and business customs.

However, regarding the title, I completely agree with what you and other people have said, and I would appreciate if you could write a little more about it. As you just said, it only says area. We need to expand the image of area a little more, and I think that smartization and DX will remove the wall of local government, so I thought that we need to have a perspective on the expansion and contraction of area, including such things, and what we can do about its governance. The perspective of residents and the perspective of the people are good, but corporate bodies are also people. Therefore, in terms of production and other matters, earning power is also important for Japan in the future, so I thought that we should enrich that aspect from now on.

However, everyone has agreed to the position of the snapshot at this point in time, and since it is highly time-limited, I feel that we will brush up a little more on it as the first snapshot in anticipation of its continuation. I hope you will understand that.

Well, thank you very much.