During the period from November 20 to 22, 2002, the 27th peer review was carried out at the Tokyo Site, Fuji Electric Co., Ltd. (Hino-shi, Tokyo.). In the peer review, Ms. Yuki Aomi, Advisory Specialist for Consumers' Affairs, participated as an observer, 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 as below.
The purport of introducing the observer this time and the contents of the observer evaluation (perspectives) have been indicated separately.

The plant was extremely clean with a good environment. I am very thankful that it proved to be a very fruitful as well as meaningful participation.

(1) Concerning Opening
The opening could have been a little shorter and simpler. Of course, since the contents of the review differ from group to group, I think some sort of initial introduction is necessary. Having such ceremonies also with the group review is repetitive. For the opening of this review, I think it would have been enough to have everyone meet each other to exchange simple greetings.

(2) Concerning document examination
I thought that we had some rather fruitful discussions during the document examination.Concerning product safety, while I had some reservations about how Fuji Electric is making use of feedback on consumer needs and satisfaction levels, I thought that part was extremely effective, leaving the strongest impression. With regard to man-machine interface, it is sometimes difficult for the designers and those who install the machines and equipments to fully understand and predict how those machines are to be utilized. In other words, there are times when people are also concerned about how easy a machine is to use, how a display looks, and in case of larger instruments, then the design, color and other such features would have to be taken into consideration.
For facilities that have that kind of equipment installed, I've often felt the needs of users should be respected a little more. I think to what extent feedback is implemented is very important. Developing full knowledge of users' needs is always important, crucially so when something unexpected should occur. As an observer I felt that it is very important to systematically implement feedback on the needs and satisfaction levels of two different customers(those who make the equipments and those who utilize them.)
Another thing I wanted to point out. The document examination was explained using computers, but I thought there were times when they could have been used more effectively. I thought it would have been better if they combined PowerPoint with the explanation of the documents. There were some technical problems with the review process, such as it being difficult to check documents given the preparation of documents and setting of the meeting place. I think the use of a bit more creativity would have been better.
Regarding the publication of the Nuclear Power HQR News, it is not enough simply saying that there have been 37 issues of HQR News, and the number of people accessing is quite large. Many people know that HOR News is available and a large percentage, even 90%, of the subscribers read them, but does the News really serve them usefully? Or, if there are some improvements to be made what are they? How can they be made? I felt that this should receive a little more priority. I know that many companies are saying that they are putting out many in-house publications, lots of cards being distributed internally on safety issues, but I wonder do they really actually read them in this day and age? It may be helpful to have a few public relations personnel in the editorial staff.

(3) Concerning Interviews
As for the interviews with the top management such as with the operations chief and deputy chief, in terms of schedule I think it would be better if it was moved up a bit. In other words, there were many good instances where top management were asked about company philosophy and the like during the document examination, so I thought it would be better to have the interviews earlier in order to grasp the corporate style and philosophy of a company such as Fuji Electric.
Specifically, in the latter half of the first review day, when we were discussing how the gymnasium was being made available to local residents, questions were raised to inquire whether adequate information on use of radioactive materials was being provided to the residents. And this was quite an issue. My specialty being in public relations, I felt that this was one of the major points that should have been handled as such. A little more in-depth discussion should have taken place during the operation chief and deputy chief interviews. I have little idea how the host organization felt about this, but to me this was an important issue.

(4) Concerning field observation
I looked at places such as the education training room and where products were being made. For both, I clearly appreciated their excellence. Wherever one looked one could see PPORF there, and I felt its effectiveness functioning. This was probably also noticed by other reviewers as well.
In the plant, I was particularly interested in the self-completed production system, and the work of the man with specialized skills who was making and testing GM tubes. From the viewpoint of the peer reviewers as well, questions were asked regarding technology dissemination, and I had the same feeling. While I think there are pros and cons to having a self-completed production system, I wondered if adequate precautions are being taken for the individual worker, since so much heavy load is placed solely on him alone. I am sure that something is being done on this, but I would have liked to hear a little more about this.

(1) Opinions about the Peer Review
If Nsnet is to continue peer-review activities, the utmost important concept that we should always keep in mind is, simply this: "there is no relationship whatsoever of people-above and people-below, or those who order and those who serve." A peer- review is a peer-review in the exact sense of the words: "Someone's work being reviewed by his or her peer, nothing more, nothing less." I couldn't emphasize this point more. All participants share just one common objective, that is, safety of nuclear energy. Success or failure of the peer-review depends entirely on how each participant trusts each other, and shares the common goal.

(2) Participation by women
There were some women at the workplace and I've heard there are highly skilled and qualified women experts in assembling lines, but overall there are few female technicians. I think it is also important to look at many things from a woman's point of view. It might be good to increase the number of women in places where products are being made. It might also be good to add more women to the reviews. In the society of ours, whenever people sharing common interest gather, in parties, conventions, exhibits, etc., you see very few females. This is supposed to be an equal-opportunity country. More women certainly should be participating in every phase of our society.

(1) Observer: Ms. Yuki Aomi

Occupation:

Main career and posts:

Public service posts:

(2) Peer review (location)
27th peer review (Hino-shi, Tokyo)

(3) Participation schedule
For two days, November 20 to 21, of the review term of November 20 to 22, 2002