3.8 Article

On the integration of manufacturing strategy: deconstructing Hoshin Kanri

Journal

MANAGEMENT RESEARCH REVIEW
Volume 42, Issue 3, Pages 412-426

Publisher

EMERALD GROUP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1108/MRR-04-2018-0178

Keywords

Strategic decisions; Hoshin Kanri; Strategic management and leadership; Operations strategy; Manufacturing strategy; Strategy deployment; Trade-offs

Categories

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [71750410694]
  2. Guangdong Province Universities and Colleges Pearl River Scholar Funded Scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to show that Hoshin Kanri has the potential to integrate the operations strategy literature into a coherent structure. Hoshin Kanri's planning process is typically described as a top-down cascading of goals, starting with the senior management's goals and moving to the lowest organizational level. The authors argue that this misrepresents a firm's actual cognitive processes in practice because it implies reasoning from the effects to the cause, and assumes a direct causal relationship between what the customer wants and what is realizable by the system. Design/methodology/approach This study is conceptual, based on abductive reasoning and the literature. Findings The actual strategic thought process executed in an organization consists of three iterative processes: (i) a translation process that derives the desired customer attributes from customer/stakeholder data, (ii) a process of causal inference that predicts realizable customer attributes from a possible system design and (iii) an integrative process of strategic choices whereby (i) and (ii) are aligned. Each element relies on different cognitive processes (logical relation, causal relation and choice). Originality/value This is the first study to focus on the thought processes underpinning manufacturing strategy.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available