During the period from October 2 to October 4, 2002, the 25th peer review was carried out at the Energy & Industrial Systems Center, Mitsubishi Electric Corp., (Kobe-shi, Hyogo Prefecture). In the peer review, Ms. Inoue, chairperson of WARP (Women's Ability Reactive Programs), a lifestyle information critic from outside NSnet membership, participated as an observer over a period of two days. We would like to introduce her opinions and impressions, which we have compiled below.
The purport of introducing the observer this time and the contents of the observer evaluation (perspectives) have been indicated separately.

1. How to conduct peer review

(1) Recommendations for observers
As a result of participating in the peer review as a third-party observer rather than a specialist, I had the following impressions:

- With respect to the host (the organization subjected to the review) and the reviewers, the number of personnel with responsible roles seemed appropriated, but I think that it would be better to have appropriate number of third-party observers.
- Since it is difficult for observers who are not specialists to cover the entire review on one's own, it is necessary for multiple observers (a team of observers) to participate.

(2) Reviewers
- To be able to conduct review from various viewpoints in a well-balanced way, it seems necessary to include reviewers with different viewpoints (for example, female reviewers).

(3) Explanation
- The host gave his explanation in an orderly manner aiming to achieve efficient use of time, I think. Since it looks formal somehow, it would be better for onsite personnel to give their explanations, which should be complemented by managers.
- I think that it would be easier for reviewers to ask questions if one person from the host organization accompanies two reviewers for field observation.

2. Impressions about safety activities (obtained through the peer review)

(1) Safety and security consciousness
- Those who are engaging in nuclear power may consider it sufficient that nuclear energy is produced on the highest level. However, the public demand for the safety of nuclear power does not remain such a level. It must give them a sense of security. Safety and security culture is necessary.
- From the public viewpoint, the safety of a thing is determined based on the level of the technology involved. The public would accept such a thing with peace of mind if they know that it is formulated upon the attitude and technology of the people engaging in it. It is the safety and security culture, and I hope that you will adapt to considering both aspects in such a way.
- I would like you to ask yourself, "Who are your customers?" I think the keyword for the current society is traceability. We do not trust the quality until we know who made it, where the concept lies, if it brings us peace of mind ensuring that no better quality is available in this world, or if it is a brand that has pride.

(2) Impressions about Mitsubishi Electric Corp.
- I now understand well that Mitsubishi Electric Corp. puts extra emphasis on quality control. In other words, they are doing a very good job, building various mechanisms, setting up hot lines, offering training for managers, and so on. And I must mention that the factory is clean.

3. Participation status of third-party observer (reference)

(1) Observer: Ms. Chiiko Inoue
Current job:

Main career and posts:

Public service:

Publications:

Areas of Specialty:

Awards:

(2) Peer review (location)
25th peer review (Kobe-shi, Hyogo Prefecture)

(3) Participation schedule
For two days, October 2 and 3, of the review term of October 2 to October 4, 2002