Manufacturing AI Logistics Conference 2026 in Hiroshima | Session F: Detailed Report

AI Is Changing the Rules of Competition in Manufacturing— Quality and Trust as New Sources of Competitiveness: Perspectives from Global AI Trends, Hiroshima’s Demonstration Projects, and Private-Sector Implementation —

The question is not simply whether to introduce AI, but how to verify its decisions and quality and put them to use in real-world operations. Could the ability to verify that trust become a new source of competitiveness for businesses?

Session F of the Manufacturing AI Logistics Conference 2026 in Hiroshima brought together different perspectives to discuss quality and trust in the AI era, including international AI governance trends such as the Hiroshima AI Process, the potential to translate its principles into real-world implementation, and Hiroshima Prefecture’s support for demonstration projects and efforts to build an industrial ecosystem.

The speakers were Atsushi Shimazaki, Deputy Director of the AX and New Technology Strategy Office at Japan’s Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications; Keita Murakami, Senior Officer of the Innovation Promotion Team, Commerce, Industry and Labor Bureau, Hiroshima Prefectural Government; and Hidemitsu Maeki, Representative Director of AI Assurance, Inc. Shogo Kanbara, Representative Director of Crowdsien Inc., served as moderator, raising questions not only about the potential of technology but also about what is needed to turn that potential into real industrial strength.

Can AI Decisions Be Used in Real-World Operations?

Opening the discussion, Maeki framed the central issue in using AI in manufacturing and logistics as a question: Can AI decisions be allowed to drive real-world operations?

For AI to generate an excellent answer and for the correctness of that answer to be verified are not the same thing. Maeki cited the example of checking a mathematical proof produced by AI using Lean, explaining that technologies for verifying correctness exist separately from technologies for generating answers. He then emphasized the importance of AI assurance, which provides quality assurance for AI.

The discussion did not stop at mathematics. Maeki presented a direction in which mathematics could also be used to verify quality in business domains such as quality management and logistics. How can technologies that verify quality independently of AI models be connected to actual business operations? He expressed his intention to advance this approach as a form of real-world implementation originating in Hiroshima.

Maeki also introduced an example of checking AI search results concerning the conference organizer, ONZA LINX, and offered a perspective on how companies publishing verifiable information about quality could influence the selection and evaluation of information in the future.

Could the ability to verify the evidence supporting quality become increasingly important, rather than relying solely on name recognition or brand reputation? The proposition that quality assurance efforts themselves could become a source of competitiveness provided a concrete perspective for considering the session’s theme of changing rules of competition.

Kanbara expressed interest in this as one approach to verifying the correctness of AI-generated answers and connected the discussion to legal frameworks, policies, and governance around the world.

Global AI Rules and Japan’s Efforts Toward International Cooperation

Shimazaki then compared AI policies in the European Union, the United States, and Japan, explaining their respective approaches.

Regarding the EU, he explained that it regulates AI through legislation from perspectives including the protection of human rights, while also placing emphasis on AI development and use. Regarding the United States, he noted its focus on promoting innovation and building AI infrastructure, alongside its interest in frontier AI safety and voluntary risk management. His explanation highlighted the breadth of national AI policies, which cannot be understood simply in terms of the strength or weakness of regulation.

For Japan, Shimazaki emphasized its soft-law approach centered on voluntary initiatives and its involvement in shaping international AI governance. Even among countries with different regulatory approaches, there are shared principles such as human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. He explained Japan’s approach to ensuring interoperable AI governance by building on these common principles.

One representative initiative he introduced was the Hiroshima AI Process. Shimazaki presented its International Guiding Principles and International Code of Conduct as part of a framework involving not only governments but also businesses, academia, and civil society. He highlighted risk assessment and mitigation throughout the AI lifecycle, responsible information disclosure, and the disclosure of policies as important elements.

He also explained the discussions and information sharing conducted through the Friends Group and Partners Community, referring to the participation of the Hiroshima AI Assurance Council in the Partners Community.

As an initiative connected to domestic practice, he introduced Japan’s AI Guidelines for Business. He explained that the guidelines apply not only to AI developers but also to providers and users, including national and local governments. He encouraged participants who use AI in their operations, including those in manufacturing and logistics, to refer to the guidelines.

AI governance is not an issue solely for companies that develop AI. Those who use AI in their operations must also consider appropriate measures according to their respective roles. This point connected global developments with practical business activities in Japan.

Turning Hiroshima’s Demonstration Support into Lasting Connections

From the perspective of strengthening the competitiveness of industries within Hiroshima Prefecture, Murakami introduced the Hiroshima Sandbox and one of its initiatives, the Hiroshima AI Sandbox.

Behind these initiatives is a sense of urgency that companies in Hiroshima may lose competitiveness unless they incorporate digital technologies such as AI into their businesses. At the same time, regional companies do not necessarily have sufficient personnel or expertise to connect cutting-edge technologies with business transformation. The initiative therefore connects the challenges faced by local companies with companies inside and outside Hiroshima that possess technologies and ideas capable of addressing them.

Murakami organized the specific support measures into two areas: matching and demonstration support. Companies facing challenges are introduced to companies with relevant technologies, enabling them to collaborate on development and effectiveness verification. By covering part of the associated costs through subsidies, the program aims to improve operational efficiency and create new added value and services.

The demonstration projects introduced included improvements in delivery planning, production planning, and order processing. In a delivery planning project involving Otafuku Holdings Co., Ltd. and JIJ Inc., Murakami explained that working time had been reduced by approximately half during the demonstration stage, and that the possibility of enabling less-experienced employees to prepare plans had been identified.

In the project involving Narutaki Kogyo Co., Ltd. and Skydisc, Inc., he introduced an initiative to reproduce the thinking processes of experienced employees in production planning using AI, as well as efforts to read, organize, and aggregate order forms received in different formats, including fax and PDF. These examples highlighted issues familiar to manufacturing and logistics businesses, such as how to make use of knowledge accumulated on the shop floor and how to handle complex daily tasks.

At the same time, Murakami clearly identified areas that demonstration support alone cannot address. Prefectural programs can attract people and companies with relevant technologies and support their initial challenges. However, to create a sustainable cycle in which new ideas and businesses continue to emerge in the region, the connections formed through demonstration projects must be maintained and expanded.

It was in this context that he referred to the Hiroshima AI Assurance Council. Murakami viewed the Council’s concept of building connections between logistics companies and closely related manufacturing businesses around the themes of AI trustworthiness and safety as an initiative that could complement the prefecture’s programs.

Creating opportunities to test technologies and ensuring that users and collaborators remain connected afterward are both important. How to link prefectural demonstration support with the formation of regional communities emerged as a concrete issue for real-world implementation.

What Is Needed to Move from Demonstration to Implementation?

Following the presentations, Kanbara asked what would be needed to move beyond demonstration projects and achieve real-world implementation.

Maeki pointed out that Japan has two strengths: international AI governance initiatives represented by the Hiroshima AI Process, and the high-quality products and services cultivated by private-sector companies. He stated that presenting the evidence supporting quality and decisions in a verifiable form is essential to turning these strengths into new sources of competitiveness in the AI era.

He further explained the importance of connecting these existing strengths through AI assurance and implementing mechanisms that allow AI-based decisions to be responsibly adopted and executed in business operations. He expressed the view that Japan should take the lead in advancing such initiatives by making use of the Hiroshima AI Process as an important asset.

He also expressed his expectation that successful real-world implementation could attract appealing companies and contribute to the underlying strength of Hiroshima’s industries.

Shimazaki identified human resource development as a key requirement. He pointed out that Japan needs not only people who develop AI but also people who can take responsibility for AI governance.

Governance requires a broad range of knowledge extending beyond legal matters. Given the concentration of such talent in certain major companies and overseas, he stated that securing and developing human resources across Japan’s regions is an important challenge.

Murakami explained that demonstration projects are still at the testing stage, and that moving toward implementation requires broader use by more people. Demonstration projects established through one-to-one relationships should not remain closed initiatives. He suggested that expanding the connections among those testing and using technologies would provide a pathway from demonstration to implementation.

Putting technologies into action, developing the people who support them, and expanding networks of users: the three speakers’ responses illuminated, from their respective perspectives, the challenge that demonstrating technical effectiveness alone is not sufficient to complete real-world implementation.

Toward the Real-World Implementation of the Hiroshima AI Process and the Development of Hiroshima’s Industrial Ecosystem

This session featured an overview from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications of international AI governance trends, including the Hiroshima AI Process, while the private sector presented technologies for verifying AI decisions and quality and raised questions about their real-world implementation. How can the principles of the Hiroshima AI Process be put into practice in manufacturing and logistics? Connecting the international initiative launched following the 2023 G7 Hiroshima Summit to practical action from Hiroshima, the place where it originated, was also an important theme of the session.

Meanwhile, Hiroshima Prefecture introduced its support for demonstration projects connecting companies and technologies from inside and outside the prefecture, as well as its efforts toward building an innovation ecosystem beyond those projects. Murakami also expressed the view that the Hiroshima AI Assurance Council’s efforts to build connections among companies could complement the prefecture’s initiatives.

Maeki outlined a vision in which the combination of international AI governance trends and Japan’s longstanding commitment to quality could enable the real-world implementation of technologies aiming to be at the global forefront. Such initiatives could spread from manufacturing and logistics operations in Hiroshima and, by attracting appealing companies, contribute to strengthening the region’s industrial competitiveness.

The real-world implementation of the Hiroshima AI Process and the development of Hiroshima’s industrial ecosystem. While respecting the different positions and objectives of those involved, how can international AI governance, private-sector technologies, and regional demonstration projects be connected to create new value? This session provided an opportunity to consider the possibilities for new industries emerging from Hiroshima.