One work-around: doing your R&D outside Japan. Feeding into that need is the shrinking number of college graduates to staff R&D inside Japan. From firm visits as the judge for an innovation competition, I know several examples in automotive for Japanese suppliers doing core work in the US and Europe. Of course this may be successful but not generate value-added for the domestic Japanese economy. Inside Japan, well, mobility is indeed low, though "shukko" and other work-arounds may mean it is _slightly_ better than your data suggestion.
I'd like to know more about these suppliers doing core work in US. Is there an article you can send me, or perhaps we can just do it the old-fashioned way and talk via Zoom.
As far as shukko goes, the drawback there is that companies are then working with those whom they've trained to work within the same business model and mindset. The whole advantage of true open innovation--rather than treating an outside firm as just another supplier, but of knowledge--is that you are partnering with someone with a different approach. It's giving you a much bigger menu of options. It's the diversity that counts. What I've found is that Japanese giants who engage in all sorts of collaboration with suppliers and customers have a problem doing that with outsiders.
FYI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan), “IT-jinzai jukyu ni kan suru chosa (gaiyo)” [Study on the Supply and Demand of IT Personnel (Summary)], October 20, 2022, https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/it_policy/jinzai/gaiyou.pdf.
Richard good description of the issue. There are too many issues with the Japanese system to list.
I think the top is not having a system that allows for bankruptcy. Are you really going to leave a good paying job to strike it out on your own with the possibility of losing everything you have worked for?
Lack of respect for the rich is another issue. Because CEO and senior management pay it too low the GINI coefficient is too low. A low GINI coefficient is seen as good in Japan, but it means that there isn't a wealthy group of people that have the means to be "angle" investors or early adopters.
Japan does not have an equity culture. Japanese corporates are not focused on shareholders or shareholder returns. Japan needs to take the pension fund assets back from the government. Quite often total return is not the main focus of these government run pension funds -- this means corporates aren't focused on returns. Without an active and efficient equity market (especially for IPOs) you can't fund growing companies.
Japan has many great scientists and they are able to produce many patents -- in the US a lot of the motivation of making the effort of starting a new company is financial. This works well because even if your focus is simply the betterment of society, you will need money to make it happen.
I agree with your list. Behind the bankruptcy is the issue of lifetime employment and the lack of an overt govt-financed safety net. One's current job at one's current company is the prime safety net. That being the case, even moribund companies are kept alive.
Usually, growth in sales and making sure they are large enough to cover fixed costs, including labor. Also, market share and empire-building. And sometimes just keeping the firm going and preserving their own jobs.
One work-around: doing your R&D outside Japan. Feeding into that need is the shrinking number of college graduates to staff R&D inside Japan. From firm visits as the judge for an innovation competition, I know several examples in automotive for Japanese suppliers doing core work in the US and Europe. Of course this may be successful but not generate value-added for the domestic Japanese economy. Inside Japan, well, mobility is indeed low, though "shukko" and other work-arounds may mean it is _slightly_ better than your data suggestion.
I'd like to know more about these suppliers doing core work in US. Is there an article you can send me, or perhaps we can just do it the old-fashioned way and talk via Zoom.
As far as shukko goes, the drawback there is that companies are then working with those whom they've trained to work within the same business model and mindset. The whole advantage of true open innovation--rather than treating an outside firm as just another supplier, but of knowledge--is that you are partnering with someone with a different approach. It's giving you a much bigger menu of options. It's the diversity that counts. What I've found is that Japanese giants who engage in all sorts of collaboration with suppliers and customers have a problem doing that with outsiders.
FYI Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (Japan), “IT-jinzai jukyu ni kan suru chosa (gaiyo)” [Study on the Supply and Demand of IT Personnel (Summary)], October 20, 2022, https://www.meti.go.jp/policy/it_policy/jinzai/gaiyou.pdf.
Dennis, this seems to be from 2019. Is there a different URL for 2022.
ＩＴ人材需給に関する調査（概要）
平成３１年４月
経済産業省
情報技術利用促進課
１．
Thanks, Dennis.
Richard good description of the issue. There are too many issues with the Japanese system to list.
I think the top is not having a system that allows for bankruptcy. Are you really going to leave a good paying job to strike it out on your own with the possibility of losing everything you have worked for?
Lack of respect for the rich is another issue. Because CEO and senior management pay it too low the GINI coefficient is too low. A low GINI coefficient is seen as good in Japan, but it means that there isn't a wealthy group of people that have the means to be "angle" investors or early adopters.
Japan does not have an equity culture. Japanese corporates are not focused on shareholders or shareholder returns. Japan needs to take the pension fund assets back from the government. Quite often total return is not the main focus of these government run pension funds -- this means corporates aren't focused on returns. Without an active and efficient equity market (especially for IPOs) you can't fund growing companies.
Japan has many great scientists and they are able to produce many patents -- in the US a lot of the motivation of making the effort of starting a new company is financial. This works well because even if your focus is simply the betterment of society, you will need money to make it happen.
I agree with your list. Behind the bankruptcy is the issue of lifetime employment and the lack of an overt govt-financed safety net. One's current job at one's current company is the prime safety net. That being the case, even moribund companies are kept alive.
Usually, growth in sales and making sure they are large enough to cover fixed costs, including labor. Also, market share and empire-building. And sometimes just keeping the firm going and preserving their own jobs.