Two ways to say "difficult."

• “To find a solution to a problem for which a solution has not yet been found.”

• We have a candidate solution, but we don’t know if it’s the right one until we try it, and the cost of trying it is high.”

• The fact that both are called “[difficult (e.g. customer, guest, child)” complicates the story.

• The two are not mutually exclusive.

  • Finding a solution” is also achieved by thinking of “candidate solutions” and trying them out on your own, after all.

• Can this be explained by “the cost of obtaining candidate solutions” and “the cost of verifying solutions?”

  • Candidate solutions are hard to come by, but once you have them, you can easily verify them to make sure they’re right.”
  • ‘Candidate solutions are easy to come by, but you have to spend a lot of time to figure out which one is the right one.’
  • Differences in.

relevance - Koichiro Eto : Difference between Science and Engineering also felt like it was.scienceengineering - I dared to separate the two, but the context of the conversation was the Research and Monetization contrast of “you are solving a difficult problem” and “no, it is more difficult to make technology profitable. - supplementary explanation - Some people say to technically advanced people, “You are trying to solve a more difficult problem, but isn’t it still monetizable at this point?” and others say, “No, monetization is more difficult.” I find the “which is more difficult” argument futile because the “difficult” in both cases means different things. - Masakazu Masushima : - This difference in cost depends on the position in which the subject is placed. - This is where the concept of comparative advantage arises, and where economics teaches us that trading possibilities are created. - In the context of innovation, I think this is what open innovation is all about. - - The interpretation of comparative advantage makes perfect sense. - This approach would lead me to the conclusion that I, who am better at solving technical problems than at monetizing them, should concentrate on technology and outsource monetization. - On the other hand, “actions” such as problem solving and monetization differ from “consumer goods” like wheat and wine in their nature as goods. - The latter has value in proportion to quantity, whereas the former seems to be determined by whether or not it can be supplied when a need is met. - I have some misgivings about ignoring this difference and making a decision based on comparative advantage theory. - Masakazu Masushima : - You are referring to the value that the idea itself has no value. I understand the uneasiness felt by those who create methodologies. We are talking about the fear that the price will not be distributed fairly. In the past, intellectual property rights guaranteed the legitimacy of this distribution, but nowadays, people are more inclined to ensure the legitimacy of this distribution by directly owning equity in the business. - Having equity in the start-up means sharing the benefits of the business origination, and this is where the benefit coordination between the discoverer and the actor takes place. Conversely, an idea that does not have a manager who is fully committed to the idea and is willing to talk about commercialization is probably worthless, no matter how groundbreaking it may be academically. This is not so simple because the cost of matching or search is also involved, but I think this is what it means in a schematic sense. - - I see. So, you can either make the idea into a property right in the form of intellectual property rights and deal with the monetizers, or you can create a new personality called a corporation so that the monetization result is jointly owned. - Masakazu Masushima : - That’s right. The example doctor who did the white diode said exactly this.

• Rather than creating a new legal entity, would it be the case that the intra-company researcher shares in the monetization results by joining an existing legal entity? (If there are stock options or subsidized share ownership plans.)

relevance - can’t is a false dichotomy

---

This page is auto-translated from /nishio/2通りの「難しい」 using DeepL. If you looks something interesting but the auto-translated English is not good enough to understand it, feel free to let me know at @nishio_en. I’m very happy to spread my thought to non-Japanese readers.