With a combination of a small number of people + software + servers and robots.
We are promoting a new era of company management.
I hope to share some of the process in this section.
We are looking for a property for a new office for our subsidiary.
I was looking for a place near Shakujii, but for some reason, I couldn't find anything that fit the bill.
As I look at the properties, I think to myself that it is at times like this that the images lurking in the back of my mind come to life.
If you list the many things that bother you, such as door knobs that are too round, the name of the property that just doesn't fit, the rooms that have a nice atmosphere but not enough windows, or the objects in the hallway that are different, you will be able to focus on what you are looking for from the opposite perspective.
As a result, what we were looking for was novelty, a good view, and a lot of greenery.
Generally speaking, an office is expected to have convenient transportation, brand name location, size, and IT facilities, but it was different.
Looking back, all of Mogic's past offices were designer properties, which everyone called "cool but cold in winter and hot in summer.
If I choose to use the same criteria as in the past, the people around me will probably disagree with me because of the accumulated knowledge (i.e. cold and hot), but I want to make it work.
What kind of vision or strategy do you have for the future? I am sometimes at a loss when I am asked, "What vision or strategy do you have for the future?
This is because although I have a direction that I would like to see happen, I don't put it together in a presentation document or have a presentation meeting.
There are many directions, such as "approach education first so that it can be useful around the middle of the 21st century," "help workers feel fulfilled in their work," and "give hope to the people involved.
There is nothing more detailed than that, so there is nothing to talk about.
In general, you need KPIs, strategies, tactics, missions, and visions, but I've come this far thinking that I don't need them.
Some may argue that since the organization isn't that big, it's okay.
However, I feel that it is a little different because even if an organization is small, it will struggle and when things go wrong, they will go wrong.
I found a sentence that fits such a bewilderment, so I'll quote it here.
The body in mathematics
The Mathematical Body
When humans design artifacts, they decide in advance what is a resource and what is noise.
In the example of this circuit, each and every logic block is a resource for solving a problem, but electromagnetic leakage and flux would be considered as noise and would be eliminated as much as possible.
But that is only the designer's point of view.
In the process of bottom-up evolution, where there are no designers, anything that can be used is used without regard to its use.
As a result, resources are scattered throughout the body and environment, blurring the distinction between them and noise.
To what extent is the subject solving the problem, and from what point is the environment, they mingle without clarity.
It's a mess.
There is another question that I often get asked and it bothers me.
"Why did you aim for diversity in terms of age and nationality? "Why did you aim for diversity in terms of age and nationality?
The answer is "I didn't set out to do that," but I'm afraid you'll be disappointed, so I'll give you a slightly more dressed-up answer.
This is the result of recruiting people who are comfortable participating in Shakujii, not as designed, but as a result of adaptation.
Do you watch the strategy you set up at a certain point become invalid over time, do you eliminate noise to justify your strategy, or is it a strategy that keeps changing in small increments?
I can't seem to create a good "strategy" because it's just too big for me to handle on my own, and there is a wide variety of information flowing all over the place.
When I was working in my twenties, people around me told me that when I reached my mid-thirties, I would have to start practicing management because I would reach the limit of being active in the field as a player.
In my thirties, I started a new company in a new field and worked in the field, and by the time I was in my forties, the world was talking about a 100-year life.
I think that the basis of the 100-year life era is to keep learning, explore new possibilities, and work for a long time.
From that point of view, it is okay to challenge new industries, occupations, sites, and management as many times as you want along the way, leaving aside the barriers to entry into different fields as a practical matter.
In fact, if I were to devote myself solely to management from the age of 35, I would continue to be a manager for 35 years, assuming the retirement age is 70, which would be quite constricting for me personally.
On the other hand, you may feel that it is a burden to keep learning and challenging yourself in new fields.
Some people may say that life is not all about trying.
Therefore, there is one recommendation that I tell my interns.
In the meantime, start one new thing a day, and look back on the record a year later.
It's not a bad idea to try it, because it gives you a little moisture every day.
You don't have to do anything fancy, just buy a sweet you've never had at a convenience store, try using a fork with your left hand, try a new service, or say a word you've never used before.
Still, a year's worth will give you a list of 365 items.
After doing so, why don't you think about it again?
If you have a list of 365 things, at least one of them can be a starting point for something new.
The three R's required for a sustainable society are reduce, reuse, and recycle.
Reduce, reuse, and recycle to make new materials.
It is easy to think in terms of tangible objects, but what happens with invisible assets?
The most common invisible assets in a company are its brand and services, know-how and teamwork, management and culture.
First of all, we need to determine "how waste is occurring in these things" before we can move on, so we will think about that.
Wasted brands and services, wasted know-how and teamwork, and wasted management and culture.
In the case of Mogic, it's simple: "Whether or not the people who work and interact with it are easily satisfied" determines whether it's wasteful or not.
We don't want services that don't give workers a sense of satisfaction from their work, we don't want know-how that is efficient but doesn't allow workers to grow, and we don't want management that makes everyone involved shake their heads.
An example of something that was once effective but now no longer contributes is running events in the office.
Gone are the days when everyone gathered at the Corona disaster to share the fun, replaced by a new expression based on online chat and video streaming.
I also dismantled past services when I could no longer see their future potential, and incorporated the findings into the next service.
One way to do this is to stop providing the service.
Being sustainable may seem static, but it is dynamic in the sense that we are constantly reevaluating whether our work is worthwhile.