From the commissioning visit to responsibility across depots

Mandate

Make physical technology useful across the operating shift and develop the capability needed to maintain it.

Outcomes

• Recast a four-site sorter release as a two-site learning stage after reviewing whole-shift output.
• Retained vehicle substitutions in the engineering account of 126 completed winter duties.
• Required a packaging revision before limited field evaluation.
• Funded supported maintenance practice before extending the equipment footprint.

Decisions in context

As CTO I brought development and engineering support into a single account of physical capability. My 120 employees work through five direct reports, with twenty-four contractors separately, and I report to Takanori Uzuhara. The 2026 authority of JPY3.8 billion excludes operating fleet expenditure and enterprise applications. The case record shows how that remit meets operations: a sorter still needs irregular-item handling, a van trial can depend on reserve vehicles and a course can leave practical learning unfinished. I work with Mika Nerutani to make those consequences part of the next proposal rather than leave them outside the engineering result. My board involvement has been executive presentation, not service as a director. The role requires me to decide where a useful local finding supports extension and where the receiving organisation needs more preparation. I am developing managers who can explain both the equipment's contribution and the continuing work it creates for the wider operation.

Reason for the move

Current role; considering a compatible external board contribution without leaving executive responsibilities.

Mandate

Build a repeatable development approach without assuming every depot had the same work mix or maintenance capability.

Outcomes

• Connected equipment proposals with local maintenance and operating preparation.
• Developed four managers responsible for technical programmes and support capability.
• Introduced explicit transfer questions before extending a trial to another depot.

Decisions in context

Technical development changed the scale of the decisions I had to explain. I could no longer judge a proposal only by whether one installation worked; I needed to understand what another depot would require to use it. By March 2021 I led seventy-six employees through four direct reports with JPY1.9 billion annual authority. The ownership change in 2018 brought a new investment audience and made the distinction between trial cost and continuing capability especially useful. I worked with the CTO to require a clear transfer question before a local result became a wider programme. Maintenance preparation, staffing and work mix belonged in that discussion. The appointment also developed my managers' ability to carry disagreements across functional boundaries without reducing them to a choice between progress and resistance. I moved into the CTO role with a stronger understanding of how development priorities and support capability needed to be planned together over the life of the equipment.

Reason for the move

Appointed CTO in April 2021 to lead the combined engineering remit.

Mandate

Select and introduce warehouse equipment with an explicit account of the tasks remaining outside its preferred operating range.

Outcomes

• Made irregular-item work visible in proposed line layouts.
• Established operating-period measures alongside short-run equipment rates.
• Developed three engineering leads across selection, introduction and support.

Decisions in context

The automation appointment taught me to look beyond the portion of work that a machine handled well. By the end of the role I led forty-two employees through three direct reports and held JPY720 million annual authority. I asked teams to show where irregular parcels went, how staff recovered a stalled flow and what occupied the space around the equipment. These were practical questions about the whole operation, not objections to mechanisation. Working with depot managers helped me distinguish a promising equipment rate from an operating-period result. I also learned to explain the staffing that remained necessary without making the project appear to have failed simply because it had not removed every task. The next appointment grew from that wider view. I wanted the organisation to carry the lessons from one installation into another while still examining the receiving depot's own work, instead of treating a familiar equipment specification as sufficient evidence for repeat adoption.

Reason for the move

Promoted to technical development in April 2015 to connect installation choices across the depot network.

Mandate

Improve the reliability of equipment use and connect maintenance findings with the way depot work was organised.

Outcomes

• Separated recurring process causes from isolated equipment faults in maintenance discussions.
• Brought operating supervisors into the preparation for equipment handover.
• Developed two supervisors responsible for local engineering work.

Decisions in context

Joining a logistics operator changed my relationship with the equipment. I remained responsible after the commissioning visit ended and could see how a small inconvenience repeated through a shift. By March 2009 I led eighteen engineers through two supervisors, with JPY180 million annual authority, reporting to a regional operations manager. The company scale was much larger than my own remit, and I did not control the wider logistics account. I learned to ask whether a recurring interruption originated in a component or in the way work reached it. Operating colleagues helped me understand why a theoretically tidy arrangement could be difficult during busy periods. I brought those observations into maintenance and handover discussions, making the receiving team's preparation part of the engineering task. The move into automation leadership followed from that experience: I wanted to influence the initial choice and surrounding layout, not only solve the problems that appeared after a machine had become part of everyday work.

Reason for the move

Moved into warehouse automation leadership in April 2009 after building experience as an equipment user.

Mandate

Support equipment commissioning and communicate findings from customer use to the engineering team.

Outcomes

• Documented practical operating issues observed during commissioning.
• Learned to distinguish specification acceptance from ease of everyday use.
• Worked across supplier and customer teams during equipment introduction.

Decisions in context

I joined Senariku Systems immediately after completing my mechanical-engineering degree in March 1995. My work belonged to a six-person commissioning group, reporting to its manager, with no direct reports or delegated budget. The supplier's eventual JPY8.6 billion revenue described the employer, not authority I held. At customer sites I saw how a machine that met a specification could still create awkward operating work. I learned to ask operators about those details and bring the observations back to colleagues who could examine the design. The experience gave me a practical engineering foundation and a respect for what users noticed outside a formal test. It also left me curious about what happened after the supplier team departed. That question led me to Yoritsune Mobility in April 2003. I wanted to remain with the equipment through ordinary use, maintenance and changing workloads, and to understand the responsibilities that a customer organisation accepted when it approved an installation.

Reason for the move

Joined a logistics customer organisation in April 2003 to take responsibility beyond supplier handover.