Production Planning & Control

The Management of Operations

ISSN: 0953-7287 (Print) 1366-5871 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tppc20

Guidelines for Hoshin Kanri implementation:

development and discussion

Willian Giordani da Silveira, Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Sergio E. Gouvea da

Costa & Fernando Deschamps

To cite this article: Willian Giordani da Silveira, Edson Pinheiro de Lima, Sergio E. Gouvea
da Costa & Fernando Deschamps (2017) Guidelines for Hoshin Kanri implementation:
development and discussion, Production Planning & Control, 28:10, 843-859, DOI:
10.1080/09537287.2017.1325020

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1325020

Published online: 14 May 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 32

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tppc20

Download by: [CAPES] Date: 20 June 2017, At: 03:31

Production Planning & Control, 2017
VOL. 28, NO. 10, 843–859
https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1325020

Guidelines for Hoshin Kanri implementation: development and discussion

Willian Giordani da Silveiraa,b, Edson Pinheiro de Limab,c, Sergio E. Gouvea da Costab,c and Fernando Deschampsb,d 
a
Gestão Inteligente, Curitiba, Brazil; bIndustrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Polytechnic School, Pontifical Catholic University of Parana,
Curitiba, Brazil; cIndustrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program, Federal University of Technology – Parana, Pato Branco, Brazil; dDepartment of
Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil

ABSTRACT: ARTICLE HISTORY

Hoshin Kanri is a strategic management framework originally conceived in Japan and recognised for Received 8 December 2015
developing a deployment process that integrates business strategy and operations execution. Recently, Accepted 24 April 2017
there has been a resurgence of interest regarding Hoshin Kanri implementation among western managers, KEYWORDS
who usually face cultural challenges towards its use. This leads to the necessity of systematising a set of Hoshin Kanri;
universally applicable guiding principles or guidelines, for Hoshin Kanri initiatives. This paper presents the implementation guidelines;
results of an in-depth assessment of Hoshin Kanri guidelines carried out through a systematic process of strategy deployment
experts? interviews. It uses as its starting point a model of the guidelines that was previously developed
through a systematic literature review. The revising and refining of the guidelines is carried out by discussing
their conceptual foundations and 20 guidelines are presented that may aid in the implementation of
Hoshin Kanri in dfferent types of organisations.

1. Introduction strategic frameworks in the research community, although it con-

Despite the evolution of the strategy management field, many
companies still struggle with building the link between business
strategy and day-to-day actions. Hoshin Kanri (HK) is a strategy
management framework that is precisely recognised for building
this link. By definition, the HK framework addresses tasks such as
providing a focus to business strategy vision realisation by set-
ting few breakthrough strategic priorities to be achieved every
year; aligning strategic priorities throughout the enterprise,
while fostering agreement and commitment for their achieve-
ment; integrating strategic priorities into management routines
so that they are continually assessed and implemented; and
providing a systematic review of how well management tasks
are being carried out in the work areas for the achievement of
strategic priorities (Tennant and Roberts 2001a, 2001b; Witcher
2003; Akao 2004; Jackson 2006; Witcher and Chau 2007).
Also known as ‘Policy Deployment’ (its western translation),
HK was first introduced to western companies during the 1980s,
in the period of the transfer of Japanese knowledge in produc-
tion management. Unfortunately, since that time, few western
organisations seem to have fully understood and applied HK’s
underpinning principles. The lack of a thorough understanding
is a recurring issue pointed out in literature and in practice, sim-
ilarly to the situation observed during the spreading of the lean
production model.
Different authors (Jolayemi 2008; Chiarini 2011a; Witcher
and Chau 2014) assert that the HK framework is not as widely
and deeply explored as the Balanced Scorecard (BSC) and other
tinues to be applied in Japan and in large global companies over
the past 50 years. Both HK and BSC (and other frameworks) pro-
vide a structure and a set of procedures to align strategy through-
out the company and to measure and manage progress towards
corporate strategy achievement. However, there are relatively
few studies regarding the conceptual assumptions upon which
a HK implementation is designed in comparison to other strategic
management frameworks. Moreover, one may realise that some
of the major strengths of HK have not been properly exploited
in the performance management literature. In fact, research in
this field (Neely 2005) suggests that frameworks offered in the
literature fail to align strategic priorities throughout the company
as well as to translate them into execution. Also, as observed by
Franco-Santos and Bourne (2005), many authors continue to
stress the need for vertical and horizontal alignment of strategy.
Furthermore, as highlighted by Hrebiniak (2006), some of the
major obstacles for companies implementing a strategy are the
inability to manage change effectively and overcome resistance
to change, the unclear responsibility or accountability for actions
or implementation decisions, and the fact of not having guide-
lines or a model to guide strategy implementation efforts. Since
these issues are closely linked to aspects that are perceived as
strengths of HK, it can be denoted that HK’s concepts and mech-
anisms should be further addressed taking into account the
requirements of strategy implementation, operations planning
and performance management, rather than only in the context
of Total Quality Management (TQM) – its natural environment.

CONTACT  Fernando Deschamps  fernando.deschamps@pucpr.br, fernando.deschamps@terra.com.br

© 2017 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
844   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
There have been several research efforts that tried to solve
the weaknesses of current strategic management frameworks
by exploiting Hoshin Kanri’s concepts and methods, mainly by
means of an integration between BSC and HK for a better imple-
mentation of corporate strategy into the day-to-day routine (Asan
and Tanyaş 2007; Witcher and Chau 2007; Yang and Yeh 2009;
Yazdi and Mennatib 2011). From the increase in the number of
publications regarding HK in recent years, one may also observe
that there has been a resurgence of interest about it among
western managers. Yet, there is a relative scarcity of empirical
researches addressing issues related to the implementation of
HK, its assumptions, structure and use. In particular, implemen-
tation and use should be properly addressed at any conceptual
phase to guarantee their main goal of deploying and managing
strategy relaisation.
There is also a context-related challenge regarding Hoshin
Kanri implementation. The literature often focuses more on
the HK process, i.e. the mechanism through which it operates.
However, by borrowing ideas from Pettigrew’s framework for the
transformation of firms (Pettigrew 1987), it is possible to claim
that an important perspective on the challenges of HK imple-
mentation relates to contextual and structural aspects. On that
account, organisations may be considered socio-technical sys-
tems (Schein 2004; Franco-Santos and Bourne 2005; Hrebiniak
2006; Oakland 2011; Pettigrew 2012; Witcher and Chau 2012),
and so the implementation of management systems can be
an overwhelming task because of their inherent complexity.
Indeed, various HK publications include conceptual and practical
discussions that comprise aspects such as leadership, organisa-
tional culture and managerial capabilities (Feurer, Chaharbaghi,
and Wargin 1995; Marsden 1998; Lee and Dale 1999; Witcher
and Butterworth 2001; Tennant 2007; Witcher and Chau 2007;
Jolayemi 2009; Dombrowski and Mielke 2013). For instance, the
fundamental stages of the HK process may be common among a
set of companies, but its implementation tends to differ because
of different management styles and organisational cultures.
Another perspective of the context-related challenge on
HK implementation is that, given that HK was firstly conceived
within the context of the Japanese culture, western companies
may encounter difficulties in adapting it to its own organisational
culture. Cultural challenges are recurring issues in the literature
that address the implementation of Japanese management
models (Jadhav, Mantha, and Rane 2014; Sisson and Elshennawy
2015), especially the models of lean production and TQM, both of
which are part of the managerial context of companies adopting
HK – most companies applying HK are Lean/TQM practitioners.
For instance, some of the central components of HK are the con-
cepts of Nemawashi and Catchball, which are deeply rooted in the
Japanese way of thinking and their leadership style. Also, it can be
argued that the western culture is centred on selecting and mon-
itoring the right measures to drive change, whereas the Japanese
culture is centred on developing the right capabilities required to
enable change (Witcher and Chau 2007). In that perspective, one
may say that many western companies might not give as much
critical attention and effort to the deployment of strategy as they
give to the process of formulating the strategy. As Osada (1998)
states, the reciprocal may be true in several Japanese companies.
Also, the HK literature covers case studies conducted in
different regions, such as Poland, Turkey, United Kingdom,
Taiwan, Iran and South Africa. Even if the companies studied are
Japanese subsidiaries, the cultural adaptation should be consid-
ered (Witcher and Butterworth 2001; Ćwiklicki and Obora 2011).
Another relevant point is that the variety of HK models and char-
acteristics described in the literature denotes that there is no
clear consensus about HK structure, which might cause confu-
sion in practitioners involved in the design, implementation and
enhancement of HK.
Therefore, under various perspectives, it is possible to con-
clude that there is practical and academic interest in under-
standing what are the key drivers or generally applicable guiding
principles for Hoshin Kanri’s successful implementation and use.
However, the literature on HK does not offer a structured syste-
misation effort of this. Thus, this work aims at fulfilling this gap by
proposing a model of guidelines, validated by experts, to guide
HK initiatives. Grounded on Enterprise Engineering principles
(Deschamps et al. 2013), a guideline is defined, in the context of
this work, as a recommended HK design practice or principle that
allows some discretion in its interpretation, use, or implementa-
tion. The set of guidelines may function as a structured approach
for diagnosing and (re)designing HK initiatives.
For accomplishing this systemisation effort, the authors con-
ducted, in a previous work (Silveira et al. 2013), a systematic
literature review to derive and organise a set of guidelines for
HK initiatives, which includes process, structure and context-re-
lated guidelines. However, the original set of guidelines needs to
be evaluated, refined and confirmed through a more empirical
approach, in light of a practical perspective brought by experts,
so that these guidelines may be considered robust enough to
work as generally applicable guiding principles.
The present work shows the refinement process for the
original guidelines, resulting in a carefully scrutinised set of HK
implementation guidelines. To achieve enough robustness, the
refinement of guidelines was accomplished through a struc-
tured interviewing process applied to a group of HK experts that
includes practitioners, consultants and academics. The result is a
refined model that addresses implementation and use contexts
in such a manner that it may be applicable for different situations.
It proposes a homogenous set of ‘universal’ guidelines which
focuses on principles, rather than on tools. The refined model
also tries to achieve a self-explanatory language and a proper
balance between comprehensiveness and specificity in each of
its guidelines – which are expressed in the format of statements
and cover the entire life cycle of a strategic management system.
This work may aid researchers, practitioners and organisations
concerned with managing strategy implementation, operations
planning and performance management issues. It may be helpful
not only for those involved with implementing HK itself, but, in a
broad sense, for those concerned with the link between corporate
strategy and daily operations.
2.  Theoretical set of Hoshin Kanri implementation
guidelines
The overall structure of the original set of guidelines that served
as the starting point for this work was built mainly upon two
leading frameworks: one regarding the dimensions of HK pro-
cess and the other regarding the major dimensions of strategic
performance management systems. These dimensions were
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   845

Table 1. Central aspects and references for each original Hoshin Kanri guideline.

Category # Guideline References

Organizational culture 1 Management approach centred in the continuous improvement Lee and Dale (1998), Witcher and Butterworth (2001), Yang and
of business processes Su (2007), Anand et al. (2009), and Kim, Sting, and Loch (2014)
(Context) 2 Leadership active involvement Kondo (1998), Witcher (2003), Chiarini (2011b), and Mellat-Parast
(2015)
  3 Decisions based on Nemawashi philosophy Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts (2001b), Witcher
(2003), Masai, Parrend, and Zanni-Merk (2015)
Capabilities 4 Quality management capabilities Lee and Dale (1998), Witcher, Chau, and Harding (2008), Witcher
(2003), and Witcher and Chau (2014)
(Resources Structure) 5 Matrix management capabilities Witcher (2003), Jackson (2006), Kornfeld and Kara (2011), and
Sisson and Elshennawy (2015)
  6 Project management capabilities Witcher (2003), Jackson (2006), Kornfeld and Kara (2011), and
Sisson and Elshennawy (2015)
  7 ‘Self management’ and continuous improvement of Hoshin Kanri Witcher (2003), Witcher, Chau, and Harding (2006), McAdam et
dynamic capabilities al. (2008), Kim, Sting, and Loch (2014)
Focus 8 A vision that is challenging and relevant to all collaborators Lee and Dale (1998), Roberts and Tennant (2003), Witcher and
Chau (2007)
(Hoshin Kanri Process) 9 Medium-term goals designed to encourage innovation Lee and Dale (1998), Witcher and Chau (2007), Jolayemi (2008),
and Witcher and Chau (2014)
  10 Annual policies focused only on a few breakthrough objectives Wood and Munshi (1991), GOAL/QPC Research Committee
along with incremental objectives (1994), Witcher and Butterworth (2001), Witcher (2003)
Jolayemi (2008), Witcher, Chau, and Harding (2008), and
  11 An appropriate design of policies: meaningful, challenging and Witcher and Butterworth (2001), and Witcher, Chau, and Harding
balanced (2008), and Vieira Marinho and Cagnin (2014)
Alignment 12 Organisation-wide participation in policy planning GOAL/QPC Research Committee (1994), Lee and Dale (1998),
Tennant and Roberts (2001b), and Witcher (2003), and Witcher
and Chau (2014)
(Hoshin Kanri Process) 13 Cascaded deployment of the policies through Catchball Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts (2001b), Witcher
(2002, 2003), Linderman et al. (2004), and Witcher and Chau
(2014)
  14 Catchball applied as an iterative process of consensus building Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts (2001b), Witcher
(2003), and Witcher and Chau (2014)
  15 Planning based on cause-analysis GOAL/QPC Research Committee (1994), Witcher (2002, 2003),
and Witcher and Chau (2014)
Integration 16 Incorporation of policies into daily management Witcher (2003) Jolayemi (2008), and Witcher, Chau, and Harding
(2008),
(Hoshin Kanri Process) 17 Responsibility based on the task’s scope, rather than strictly tied Witcher and Butterworth (2001), Witcher (2003), and Chau
to functional areas (2008)
  18 Self-monitoring of targets within daily management Lee and Dale (1998), Witcher and Butterworth (2001), Witcher
(2002, 2003), and Mast and Lokkerbol (2012)
  19 Periodic reports on performance Tennant and Roberts (2001a), Witcher and Chau (2007), Jolayemi
(2008), Tan and Platts (2004), and Kim, Sting, and Loch (2014)
  20 Managers engagement Witcher (2002), and Mast and Lokkerbol (2012)
  21 Visual management Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts (2001b), Witcher and
Butterworth (2001), Smart, Maddern, and Maull (2009), and
Kim, Sting, and Loch (2014)
Review 22 An annual diagnosis from top management focused on checking Kondo (1998), Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts (2001a),
how the management of strategic issues is being carried out in Witcher and Butterworth (2001), and Witcher, Chau, and Hard-
the work areas ing (2008), and Witcher and Chau (2012)
(Hoshin Kanri Process) 23 An appropriate conduction of the annual diagnosis: stimulating Kondo (1998), Lee and Dale (1998), Tennant and Roberts
dialogue with people at all levels in order to potentiate opera- (2001b), Witcher, Chau, and Harding (2008), and Witcher and
tions’ capabilities Chau (2012)
Source: Adapted from Silveira et al. (2013)

applied as categories in the derivation of guidelines, as it will be
explained in this section.
The Witcher’s FAIR framework was considered for the HK pro-
cess because it is the most recurring one, and also because it pro-
vides a very simple, while also comprehensive structure to serve
as a background for organising the guidelines for the process of
HK. The FAIR dimensions consist in:
Focus: this dimension of the HK process involves the
• 
selection of a few key strategic priorities which consist in
breakthrough changes that are required to accomplish the
company’s medium and long-term strategic plans.
Alignment: annual policies are developed and deployed
• 
both vertically throughout the company’s levels and
horizontally across the company’s functions, by means of
the Catchball mechanism.
• Integration: the performance targets and action plans
agreed by means of Catchball are then integrated into the
work routine so that the progress on targets and  plans
can be properly managed through the PDCA cycle.
• Review: the review provided in the HK process comprises
not only the review on the results, but also on the pro-
cesses. An annual diagnosis is conducted by top manage-
ment to verify and assess how well the company is using its
HK process to manage and meet its strategic objectives. The
annual diagnosis provides important insights that fuel the
selection of policies for the next annual cycle of HK process.
846   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
It is worth noting that although the FAIR framework was con-
sidered in this work as a comprehensive and updated description
of the HK process in the literature, it does not provide a struc-
ture that could work as a framework to recommend generally
applicable guidelines for diagnosing and (re)designing HK initi-
atives, nor does it provide comprehensive detail on contextual
and structural aspects for Hoshin Kanri’s design, implementation
and use.
The Pettigrew’s (1987) framework for strategic change in
organisations was used in order to derive a broader perspec-
tive of HK as a strategic management framework. According to
Pettigrew, a systems perspective is necessary to understand the
process of managing strategy and change. As Nudurupati et al.
(2011) outline about Pettigrew’s ideas, the proper management of
change requires a contextualist approach, which, as the authors
describe, ‘encompass knowledge of the whole organization in order
to explain the process by which managers mobilize and reconstruct
contexts in order to legitimate the decision of change’. Such a con-
textualist approach is provided by Pettigrew’s framework, which
considers the relationships between the ‘content’ of change, the
‘context’ in which change occurs and the ‘process’ through which
change is undertaken. Largely because of this contextualist per-
spective, Pettigrew’s framework is often applied in studies of the
performance management literature (Bourne et al. 2000, 2002;
Bourne, Kennerley, and Franco-Santos 2005; Franco-Santos and
Bourne 2005). Based on Pettigrew’s framework, the following
dimensions were considered:
Context: this dimension involves the identification of rele-
• 
vant contextual factors that influence or are influenced by
the HK process. These factors may be external or internal,
but this work focuses on the latter, since they constitute the
field of action for managers. Among the context elements
factors like leadership, management style and organisa-
tional culture were considered.
• Structure: this dimension was adapted as a variation of the
‘content’ component of Pettigrew’s framework, based on a
broader work regarding enterprise engineering guidelines
(Deschamps et al. 2013). The ‘content’ was considered here
as the content of HK structure or design since the analy-
sis of the content of strategic change is beyond the scope
of this work. Among the structure elements, this research
considered factors like organisational structure, design of
information systems, and organizational capabilities.
A useful interpretation adopted in this work is that both
the Context and the Structure components are elements that
are not exclusively or strictly linked to the process of HK, but
are also related to other process and systems of the company.
Organisational culture, for instance, is obviously not an element
that belongs exclusively to the process of HK, but it could affect
how HK is performed. By taking these components into account,
rather than considering only the process of HK, the study that
derived the original guidelines encompassed a universe of ele-
ments associated to effective HK implementation in a manner
that attempts to be as comprehensive as possible.
The original set of guidelines was derived from a literature
review supported by the use of content analysis technique, which
is a systematic, traceable and replicable method to analyse data
and identify concepts. A thorough description of this procedure
can be found in a previous work (Silveira et al. 2013), but a brief
overview is presented next.
The first step conducted in the systematic review was
search and selection of HK-related papers within databases
such as Emerald, Elsevier, EBSCO, Taylor and Francis and Web of
Knowledge. For the derivation of guidelines, the content analysis
technique was applied. The analysis was conducted with aid of
a computational tool named ATLAS.ti. The software focuses on
qualitative data analyses. Coding is the basis of analysis. It refers
to the process of assigning categories, concepts, dimensions or
any kind of label to segments of information that are relevant to
the research project objectives. Every coded segment is treated
as a quote. The conceptual ground presented earlier in this paper
served as a starting point for the design of codes to be considered
in the content analysis. It also served as a backbone for organising
the codes during the conduction of content analysis. The content
analysis of each article was conducted by an in-depth qualitative
procedure of analysing identifying relevant segments in the arti-
cles and assigning the appropriate codes for them. A quote would
contain an information related to a recommendation, a key ele-
ment or a principle that could lead to the derivation of a guideline.
After the whole analysis of articles, a synthesis effort was carried
out. All quotes containing potential guidelines sentences were
sorted by category, by taking into account the most frequent
codes used. For each category, several common denominators
were identified among the statements – i.e. different authors
discussing common subjects. Each common denominator was
finally converted into a unique guideline through the redaction
of a complete and meaningful recommendation statement based
on the various authors’ statements.
The systematic review procedure resulted in a set of 23 ini-
tial guidelines. It is not the aim of this work to present all of the
original guidelines’ statements. The important point is the central
aspect of each guideline, i.e. the topic addressed. Table 1 sum-
marises the central aspect of each original guideline that was
proposed and updated based on the literature review by Silveira
et al. (2013). Some of the main authors that support the central
aspects are also presented.
The topic ‘Organizational Culture’ was applied as a category of
guidelines because it was identified as a major topic associated
with the context factors of a HK system, whereas the ‘Capabilities’
category was identified as a major topic regarding the structure –
in terms of the resources structure in the organisation. The former,
‘Organizational Culture’, refers to aspects that are among the set of
philosophies, principles, beliefs and values disseminated through-
out the corporation (Schein 2004). These can be understood as
aspects that shape behaviours and habits of people in the organ-
isation. The latter, ‘Capabilities’, refers to the set of knowledge,
skills, attitudes, abilities and or competencies of individuals and
teams of the organisation. HK itself can be framed as a capability
to the corporation – the capability through which the organisa-
tion implements its strategy and manages the development of
organisational capabilities.
The culture-related guidelines highlight three aspects: con-
tinuous improvement culture, leadership active involvement
and the Nemawashi principle. For an organisational to succeed
in its HK initiative, it has to prepare the ground of continuous
improvement philosophy. It provides a sense of purpose for the
HK initiative. Naturally, management approaches such as TQM,
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   847

Table 2. Participating experts in the individual interviews and workshops and summary of their expertise with Hoshin Kanri.

Expert Summary of expertise P C A

#e01 The expert has approximately 30 years of experience as both consultant and executive. His expertise is in lean manu- X X  
facturing, TQM, TPM and strategic management. The expert’s involvement with Hoshin Kanri started in the 1990s; by
the time he took courses with Yoji Akao. The expert was trained on Japanese production management techniques
through an intensive prgramme carried out by Japanese consultants for developing consultants in southern Brazil
#e02 The expert has approximately 15 years of experience as a consultant. His expertise is on Systemic Productivity, for    X X 
which he holds a master’s degree, production planning and control, lean manufactiring, TOC, TQM and strategic
management. He has also been trained in Japanese management techniques, including Hoshin Kanri. He has a long
experience in applying Hoshin Kanri and other strategic management frameworks as a consultant
#e03 The expert is a Japanese industrial engineer. He lives in Brazil and has over 30 years of experience in lean manufac- X X  
turing and TQM. He implements Hoshin Kanri since the 1990s. He was trained in the company headquarters for
implementing Hoshin Kanri in its Brazilian subsidiary where he worked as manager for several years
#e04 The expert has almost a decade of experience in production planning and control and in lean manufacturing X   X 
#e05 The expert has approximately two decades of experience in supply chain management and lean manufacturing. He X   X 
worked several years in a joint venture between American and European automakers, where he was trained for
implementing Hoshin Kanri and lean manufacturing
#e06 The expert has approximately 15 years of experience. He developed several consultancy projects for applying Hoshin X  X   
Kanri in big Brazilian companies and also was trained in Japan
#e07 The expert #7 has around 15 years of experience. Her expertise is in strategic management, in which she holds a mas- X   X X 
ter’s degree. She has implemented Hoshin Kanri practices in several consultancy projects, and is a senior profession-
al for coordinating strategic management projects in companies
#e08 The expert has around 15 years of experience. Her expertise is in total quality management and lean manufacturing. X X  X 
She worked as a quality manager for several years in a brewing company in southern Brazil, where she applied
Hoshin Kanri and policy deployment techniques
#e09 The expert has almost a decade of experience. Her expertise is in lean manufacturing, for which she holds a master’s X X  X 
degree, and in TQM and strategic management. She worked as a consultant for several years, and has experience in
projects related to Hoshin Kanri practices implementation
#ws01 The expert is an academic with a doctorate degree in Industrial and Systems engineering. He is a professor in Opera-   X  X 
tions Management, developing research activities for the last 20 years, and his main research interests are related to
operations strategy and lean manufacturing. He is also involved with consultancy activities related to improvement
of management processes
#ws02 The expert is an academic with a doctorate degree in Industrial and Systems engineering. He is a professor in Op-   X  X 
erations and Technology Management, developing research activities for the last 20 years, and his main research
interests are related to performance management and measurement and performance analytics. He is also involved
with consultancy activities related to performance measurement systems implementation
#ws03 The expert is an academic with a doctorate degree in Industrial and Systems engineering. He is an associated profes-   X  X 
sor in Enterprise Engineering developing research activities for the last 10 years and his main research interests are
related to process improvement, project management and systems integration. He also is involved with consultancy
activities related to enterprise engineering
Notes: Legend: [P] practitioner; [C] consultant; [A] academic

Lean Production and the Kaizen philosophy are intrinsically linked
to HK implementation because they compose the managerial
context in which HK was originated. The active involvement of
leadership, in its turn, is an aspect often mentioned in HK litera-
ture because HK clearly deals with organisational change, requir-
ing proper leadership and communication. As to the Nemawashi
principle, it is an aspect deeply rooted in Japanese culture and is
present in a range of formal and informal habits in decision-mak-
ing processes. With Nemawashi in place, the leaders develop a
basis for sharing and discussing ideas and to reach a proper agree-
ment on decisions.
Regarding the capabilities-related guidelines, individuals and
teams must be empowered through an ability to use the PDCA
methodology, quality tools, team working and problem-solv-
ing techniques. The concept of empowerment is related to the
autonomy of collaborators in applying management techniques
in order to solve the problems that emerge within their daily work.
As to the guideline that addresses matrix management capabili-
ties, it refers to the organisation’s capability in combining depart-
mental and cross-functional management. Project management
capabilities were also derived as a recommendation required for
effectively carrying out complex and/or organisation-wide stra-
tegic issues. The last capability-related guideline addresses HK
itself as a cross-functional capability that should be managed and
continuously improved throughout the organisation.
The process-related guidelines comprise many aspects that
were mentioned earlier in this paper. Even so, some aspects and
notions stand out and deserve attention. The original guideline
#10 points out the necessity of determining only a few vital break-
through priorities to be achieved during the annual cycle of HK.
Meanwhile, insofar as the policies are defined at the more opera-
tional levels, incremental improvement objectives should also be
considered in order to sustain the performance of important daily
processes. As to original guideline #11, a recommendation was
derived for the design of annual policies. The ‘balanced’ design
implies that the policies should take into account a balanced/
varied set of performance dimensions expressed in the language
of QCDE or a variation of that. The notion of organisation-wide
participation in policy planning is a consensus in HK literature,
and implies that every levels and departments should be involved
to ensure buy-in, understanding and ownership to the policies.
The importance of in-depth cause-and-effect analysis as the
basis for the planning process is formally made explicit in origi-
nal guideline #15, and is directly associated to the guideline that
addresses the need of developing quality management capabil-
ities. Regarding the Integration phase of HK process, a number
of aspects were emphasised. The original guideline #17 stresses
the importance of the cross-functional mindset and the sense of
ownership/responsibility over the policy-related work. As to the
original guideline #18, it is strongly associated to the concepts
848   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
Figure 1. Workflow of the study of guidelines refinement.
of empowerment and PDCA cycle within daily management.
Closing the guidelines, the Visual Management was identified as
an essential feature for the effective tracking of progress on pol-
icies – this a key concept in HK literature, as well as in the fields
of TQM and Lean Production – and the review-related guidelines
comprised central aspects of the TEA. For a thorough discussion
on the original guidelines, see Silveira et al. (2013).
3.  Research design
The design of this research included the participation of experts
in the practice of HK to refine and consolidate the model of the
guidelines by means of an empirical perspective. Two research
requirements were defined to generate a meaningful and clear
set of guidelines: (i) a proper selection of experienced experts;
(ii) a systematic procedure for collecting, analysing and synthe-
sising data from interviews.
The study consisted of two rounds of refinements with experts,
all conducted by one interviewer/researcher: a round of individual
interviews with nine experts and a round of workshops attended
by three other experts. The former was accomplished through
semi-structured interviews based on a successive refinement
strategy inspired by the procedures discussed in works such as
Lewis (1998), Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher (2001) and Cardoso,
Pinheiro de Lima, and Gouvea da Costa (2012). The latter worked
as a consolidation of the results obtained in the first round, and it
was accomplished through the conduction of two workshops that
applied a similar procedure as the individual interviews, but in
the format of a decision forum where three experts debated and
reached an agreement about the final version of the guidelines.
This was considered to be a proper approach to consolidate the
final version of the guidelines because it is a participative process
aimed at developing consensus. Also, to assess possible biases
of the last interviewee and avoid such biases in the final version
of the model.
The experts that participated in this work and a summary of
their expertise with HK are presented in Table 2.
The ‘Engineering’ or ‘Process Approach’ developed by Platts
(1994) was used to establish a systematic procedure for col-
lecting, analysing and synthesising data from the interviews.
This approach could be summarised by the observance of four
main characteristics: point of entry, procedures, project manage-
ment and participation. The point of entry is characterised by
the agreement of the experts to participate in the interviews,
and by contextualising the research in each individual interview.
Project management was an internal part of the research effort,
in which the participating researcher kept a timeline for doing the
interviews and workshop. The procedure will be explained next
and is depicted in Figure 1. Participation could be regarded as
the commitment each expert had to answer all questions to his/
her best ability; the participation also refers to the combination
of individual and group interventions (workshops).
First, the general planning of the study involved the selection
of experts to be invited to the study. The selection was based
mostly on the experts’ experience. The sequence of interviews
was particularly important due to the process of successive
refinement. Therefore, interviews were planned so that the most
experienced experts were prioritised in the interview order. It
was possible to schedule three highly experienced experts for
the first iterations. All of them were trained in Japan, and one of
them is Japanese.
The design of procedures for carrying out the study comprised
the procedure for conducting the interviews and collecting data
as well as the procedure for analysing and synthesising the data
collected. In this phase, the interview script, reports and all other
supporting material for the interviews were designed. After each
interview, the supporting material was incrementally updated
according to the refinements promoted by the interviewee.
Interviews took two and a half hours on average, with none
of them lasting less than two hours. The data collected was
recorded in standard documents, and a complete report was
consolidated following each interview, while the information
was still fresh to the interviewer. The rationale of the analysis
and synthesis on the data collected is further described later

in this section. The interview procedure comprised three major
activities: contextualisation, guidelines analysis and complete-
ness analysis. The contextualisation activity worked as a point
of entry for the interview. In this step, the purpose of the inter-
view was recalled and the definition of the term ‘guideline’ was
explained to the interviewee. Afterwards, the content and organ-
isation of the guidelines was presented and the interviewee was
asked about his/her experiences with HK and his/her general
perceptions about the main difficulties faced by companies in
its implementation. This brief questioning helped prepare for
the discussion of the guidelines.
The guidelines analysis was the core of the whole study. Firstly,
it was explained to the expert the underlying logic of the analy-
sis to be carried out. For each single guideline, the interviewee
was asked to answer whether he or she agreed or not with the
proposed guideline. The answer for this question would start a
discussion that would lead or not to a change in the guideline
statement. In summary, each guideline was analysed by the
expert in the following general steps:
Step #1: Presentation of the original version of the guide-
• 
line, as seen on Table 1.
• Step #2: Presentation of previous refinements and refine-
ment evolution.
• Step #3: Presentation of the last-iteration version of the
guideline as refined by the last interviewee.
• Step #4: Analysis of the last-iteration version of the guide-
line by the expert.
Figure 1 depicts the interview process, creating a structure for
managing this research project and which may be useful for other
researchers applying similar research strategies.
Each completed instance of the interview process is referred to
as an ‘iteration’. Naturally, in the first interview, there was no last-it-
eration version and no refinements’ evolution. So, the first expert
interviewed analysed the guideline’s original version, resulting in
the first refinement iteration. The second expert, in turn, analysed
the guideline refined by the first expert (first iteration), and so on.
If the guideline had been eliminated in the last iteration, then the
status ‘eliminated’ represented the refined version for the subse-
quent interviewee. On the other hand, if the guideline had not
been altered in the last iteration, then it would be maintained as
the refined version. According to Bryman (1995) and Dubois and
Gadde (2002), these procedures could be classified as ‘abductive
reasoning’ as a kind of ‘inference to the best explanation’.
It is important to highlight that, in an incremental manner, all
experts had access to the original version as well as to all of the
earlier versions. Both the presentation of the guideline’s original
version (Step #1) and the presentation of the evolution of refine-
ments (Step #2) in all iterations were important to keep structural
integrity throughout the process. That way, the backbone of the
process was kept along the iterations, and each expert was aware
of the earlier refinements – the expert would have the possibility
to call back an earlier version and work upon it, if that was the
case, as it will be explained later. The works of Lau (1999) and
Cardoso, Pinheiro de Lima, and Gouvea da Costa (2012) reinforce
the importance of such a holistic view of the refinement process.
Moreover, Steps #1 and #2 were necessary for some obvi-
ous reasons. Firstly, because if an expert decided to eliminate
the guideline, then the analysis would make no sense for the
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   849
subsequent interviewee. Secondly, because if an expert decided
to significantly change the guideline statement, the original focus
alongside all the previous efforts of refinement and their concep-
tual discussions would be lost in the process. Thus, the procedure
was designed to avoid possible biases of the last interviewee.
Unfortunately, earlier experts in the process had no opportunity
to know and discuss changes made after them. However, the
design of the interviews sequence (prioritising highly experienced
experts for the first iterations) and the final round of workshops
(promoting consensus building) were expected to minimise this
issue. By applying Steps 1 and 2, both the fundamental basis for
discussion and the concepts valued by experts were sustained as
inputs from one iteration to another. In doing so, the interviewer
served as a focal point to share the vision of the interviewees,
from one expert to another, in such a manner that the refinement
was enriched over time. In that perspective, the successive refine-
ment of guidelines was a kind of a Nemawashi-flavoured process,
generating improvement, learning and agreement at the same
time (Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher 2001; Witcher and Chau 2014;
Mesquida and Mas 2015).
Closing the interview, the expert was asked about the com-
pleteness of the model, that is, if there was a key feature not cov-
ered in the model which should be addressed as a new guideline.
The results of the completeness analysis were applied as a qual-
itative analysis of the model. In general, experts confirmed the
completeness of the model, and only a couple of experts sug-
gested possible new guidelines, not because they considered the
model to be incomplete, but as a suggestion for enriching the
model. Their suggestion was recorded in a suggestions database.
After each interview, data collected was thoroughly reported
in a standard document (each interview resulted in a new report
in the same standard), comprising information gathered in the
three major activities of the interview procedure. Regarding
guidelines analysis, the report included: (i) the phrasing of the
guideline statement, as defined by the expert; (ii) information
on the analysis and discussion undertaken by the expert, i.e. the
criteria considered for the refinement; and (iii) a critical reflection
by the researcher/interviewer. A final section of the report was
an overall critical reflection, including a synthesis of common
denominators identified from iteration to iteration, as well as
insights and reflections on structural and methodological fea-
tures. This procedure was useful for deepening the qualitative
analysis in the study.
With the interview report set up, a qualitative assessment
could be done regarding refinement convergence. The criterion
applied in the assessment was the nature of the refinements
generated by the expert in relation to the last-iteration of each
guideline, which could be one of the following: (i) no change;
(ii) semantic or syntactic refinement; (iii) change in the guideline
focus; (iv) elimination of the guideline; and (v) synthesising the
statement of an earlier version. These criteria provided a view on
the evolution of the refinements, in such a manner that it was
possible to verify whether the guidelines were converging or not
to a consensus among the consulted experts. In doing so, it was
possible to identify if new iterations were required. The rationale
of this assessment is described in the findings section of this work.
Having decided that the set of refinements was concise and
complete enough and that it presented a satisfactory conver-
gence, the study could proceed to second round of refinements.
850   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
Table 3. Qualitative assessment of the convergence of guidelines refinements.
The purpose of the final workshops was not to thoroughly
examine the guidelines and collect new data, but to undertake
a last refinement and confirm the final version of the guidelines.
According to Tiwari, Turner, and Sackett (2007) workshops create
the basis for consolidating and assessing the final results of an
empirical research. Ojiako and Maguire (2008) see these activities
as a sort of ‘kaizen events’.
Two workshops were conducted with a group of three other
experts who did not participate in the round of individual
interviews. The workshops lasted two (2.0) hours each. These
experts were from academia, with at least 10 years of teaching
and research experience in the areas of enterprise engineering,
operations strategy and performance measurement. In the first
workshop, a brief seminar was conducted about the study. This
step worked as a point of entry to the round of workshops. After
the participants were introduced to the study, the analysis of
each guideline was started. This task followed the same four steps
rationale described earlier. In order to help overcoming possible
biases of the individual interviews, the order of the guidelines
analysis was changed: first the participants analysed the pro-
cess-related guidelines, and then they analysed the context and
structure-related guidelines. As result, the final version of the
guidelines was generated, as it is presented next.
4. Findings
Findings presented here cover the individual interviews and the
workshops used to refine and to consolidate the set of guide-
lines for HK implementation.
Table 3 presents the evolution of the refinements of guidelines
through a rationale of qualitative assessment on their conver-
gence. This rationale provides the basis to draw conclusions about
the overall process.
Firstly, rows with a pre-dominance of white areas indicate
guidelines that reached a high degree of agreement among
consulted experts, given that ‘N’ implies that the expert agreed
with the previous version of the guideline. Secondly, rows with a
predominance of grey areas also represent agreement due to the
fact that both ‘R’ and ‘S’ represent a minor change in the semantics
or syntax of the guideline. In these cases, experts are contribut-
ing for the improvement of the guideline’s statement to reach:
a simpler or synthetic writing; a self-explanatory statement; or a
more generic statement by focusing on principles and purposes
rather than on specific tools and techniques. Thirdly, rows with
a pre-dominance of dark grey areas indicate guidelines that had
a stronger degree of disagreement among experts in relation to
the focus of the original guideline due to the fact that refinements
in these cases are related to the concept addressed in the guide-
line. In these cases, the aim of the experts is not about creating
a complete new guideline, but in emphasising a different aspect
of the concept expressed by the guideline that had not been
directly addressed. Lastly, rows with various black areas indicate
guidelines that generated a discussion among some experts as
to whether eliminate or not the guideline.
There are four rows that received an ‘E’ followed by a sequence
of ‘N’ legends until the last column. In these cases, there is a high
degree of agreement, given that the experts agreed with the
decision to eliminate the guideline. Hence, those four guidelines

Table 4. Original vs. refined central aspects of Hoshin Kanri process-related implementation guidelines.
Focus
# Original central aspect
8 A vision that is challenging and relevant to all collaborators
9 Medium-term goals designed to encourage innovation
10 Annual policies focused only on a few breakthrough objectives along with
incremental objectives
# Original central aspect
Alignment
11* An appropriate design of policies: meaningful, challenging and balanced
12 Organisation-wide participation in policy planning
13 Cascaded deployment of the policies through Catchball
14 Catchball applied as an iterative process of consensus building
15 Planning based on causes analysis
Integration
16 Incorporation of the policies into daily management
17 Responsibility based on the task’s scope, rather than strictly tied to a
functional area
18 Self-monitoring of targets within daily management
19 Periodic reports on performance
20 Managers engagement
20 Visual management
Review
22 An annual diagnosis from top management focused on checking how the
management of strategic issues is carried out in the work areas
23 An appropriate conduction of the annual diagnosis: stimulating dialogue
with people at all levels in order to potentiate operations capabilities
*The guideline #11 was reordered from the Focus category to the Alignment category.
Table 5. Original vs. refined central aspects of Hoshin Kanri context and capabilities-related implementation guidelines.
# Original central aspect
Organizational Culture
1 Management approach centred in the continuous improvement of
business processes
– NOT ADDRESSED
2 Active involvement of leadership
3 Decisions based on the Nemawashi philosophy
Capabilities
– NOT ADDRESSED
4 Quality management capabilities
5 Ability to apply matrix management
6 Project management capabilities
7 Administration and continuous improvement of Hoshin Kanri itself
were eliminated from the model, which are the original guide-
lines #7, #14, #20 and #23. These guidelines were eliminated
because experts agreed that the central aspect of the guideline
was already addressed in other guidelines. For instance, original
guideline #7 was considered to be covered by the central aspect
of refined guideline #1; original guideline #14 by refined guideline
#13; original guideline #20 by refined guidelines #3 and #12; and
original guideline #23 by refined guideline #20.
The convergence of refinements was calculated as the fre-
quency of guidelines with a ‘N’, ‘S’ or ‘R’ evaluation, which were
understood as minor refinements, and for that reason indicate
that the experts were converging to an agreement about the
guideline. Thus, the evaluations that would indicate a divergence
were the ones with ‘E’ or ‘C’. Regarding the overall universe of eval-
uations in the model, the proportion of convergence reached
82% (the sum of cells containing ‘N’, ‘S’ or ‘R’, divided by the total
sum of cells in the table). These numbers demonstrate a high
degree of convergence on the refinements leading to the final
version of the model.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   851
# Refined central aspect
8 A long-term vision that is meaningful to all collaborators
9 Medium-term goals that are measurable and innovative
10 Vital few annual policies focused on business growth and improvement
# Final central aspect
11 An appropriate design of policies: meaningful, balanced and sufficient
12 Organisation-wide participation in policy planning
13 Cascaded deployment of policies through mutual adjustment between
levels and departments
– ELIMINATED
14 Planning based on cause-and-effect analysis
15 Integration of the targets into management routines
16 Assignment of responsibility over functional and cross-functional targets
17 Self-discipline in managing targets within the daily routine
18 Periodic reviews on progress with mutual debate in all workplaces
– ELIMINATED
19 Visual management of performance alongside upcoming actions in all
workplaces
20 A periodic diagnosis from top management in the workplaces to check
difficulties in operations and stimulate good practices
– ELIMINATED
# Final central aspect
1 Continuous improvement and learning culture
2 High-impact performance orientation
3 Active involvement of leaders in all workplaces
4 Conciliation of different views of parties involved in decision-making
5 Overall-performance oriented teams
6 Collaborators capable to troubleshoot and manage their routine
– ELIMINATED
7 Cross-functional management capability
– ELIMINATED
The same rationale was applied to calculate the percentage
of iteration convergence as well as accumulated convergence at
each refinement iteration, both depicted in Table 3. The iteration’s
convergence refers to the sum of cells containing ‘N’, ‘S’ or ‘R’ in
the correspondent iteration’s column, divided by the total sum
of cells in that column. The accumulated convergence refers to
the same rationale, with an incremental accumulation at each
iteration (for instance, the third iteration considers the columns
#1, #2 and #3 for calculations). As it can be observed, at the eighth
iteration, a high degree of convergence (90%) and accumulated
convergence (80%) was reached. However, Guideline #6 had been
eliminated by the expert in this iteration, and it was desirable that
this decision passed through the critical assessment of another
expert. Finally, the ninth iteration reached a convergence of 96%
and 82% of accumulated convergence, which were assumed as
indicators of a satisfactory convergence.
Tables 4 and 5 present the original versus the refined set
of central aspects of the guidelines model. The former lists
the changings in the process-related central aspects, and the
852   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.

Table 6. Refined version of the Hoshin Kanri implementation guidelines.

# Organizational culture
01 It is necessary to establish a culture of continuous improvement combined with a culture of learning organisation
02 It is necessary to develop management for results with challenging targets to drive high-impact performance improvements
03 The active involvement of leadership at all levels of the organisation is needed to foster mobilisation, alignment and commitment, as well as to ensure the
effective use of management methodologies
04 The Nemawashi principle should be used to deal with conflicts in decision-making, seeking a conciliation of the different views of the parties involved
05 It is necessary to develop an orientation to the systemic view, so that each team seeks to reach its results without harming the results of other areas and the
overall results
# Capabilities
06 It is necessary to develop the collaborators’ orientation to troubleshooting and teamwork, so that they are able to apply structured methods for the man-
agement of the processes and/or projects of their routine work
07 It is necessary to develop the ability to address systemic issues by using cross-functional teams and a structured methodology for project management
# Focus
08 There needs to be a long-term vision that is meaningful to people at all levels and departments
09 The long-term vision must be translated into medium-term goals required for the next two-to-five years, which should be measurable and encourage
innovation
10 The medium-term goals must be translated into a few vital annual policies, which should target both the business growth and the improvement of its
critical areas
# Alignment
11 The annual policies should be designed at each level so as to be: meaningful to the work team, balanced in relation to performance dimensions and suffi-
cient to achieve the overall results
12 Everyone in the organisation, at all levels and departments, must be involved to a greater or lesser degree in the annual planning so as to increase adher-
ence to the strategy execution
13 Each policy must be deployed with Catchball between the different levels and departments of the organisation so as to foster the mutual adjustment of the
planning
14 The targets and means must be defined based on cause-and-effect analysis
# Integration
15 The targets must be integrated into the routines of process management or project management, so that progress can be measured
16 The cascaded deployment must assign the responsibility for the management and achievement of the targets, whether they are of a departmental or
cross-functional nature
17 It is necessary to develop self-discipline in the work teams for the completion of the activities related to the progress on targets within the daily routine
18 Periodic reports on performance must be developed to be presented during meetings, which must be performed at appropriate intervals throughout the
organisation in a way that fosters mutual discussions between managers and work teams
19 Key information of strategy planning and execution must be kept visible and updated in all workplaces so that everyone can understand, at any time, what
is happening and what needs to be done
# Review
20 A periodic diagnosis must be conducted by senior management representatives in order to hear and understand the teams’ difficulties in achieving the
targets, and thereby provide support, in a way that fosters the mutual discussion about management practices

latter lists the changings for the context-related ones. The struc-
ture-related category from the original model was updated to
the subcategory ‘Capabilities’, which is classified within the con-
text-related guidelines.
By the differences present in the phrasing of the central aspect,
it is possible to have a quick overview of the direction taken by the
experts in the refinement study. It is evidenced that experts tried
to simplify the guidelines with the rationale mentioned earlier.
As it was also described earlier, original guidelines #14, #20, #23
and #7 were eliminated. As to the original guideline #5, it was the
only guideline that had its focus changed in the ninth iteration.
After the conduction of workshops, it was decided to maintain
the changed version refined by the ninth expert, but this changed
version was considered as a new guideline, rather than a refine-
ment from the original guideline #5. As it is a new guideline, its
central aspect had not been addressed in the original model. The
central aspect of this new guideline is shown in Table 5 as the
final central aspect #5. Another new guideline that emerged in
the study is the one whose central aspect is shown in Table 5 as
the final central aspect #2.
The full version of all guidelines is presented in Table 6.
By analysing the changes that were developed during the suc-
cessive refinements of the interviews – more deeply discussed in
Section 6, it is possible to produce a conceptual map that syn-
thesises the contributions from experts and identifies general
management factors that influence HK processes.
The proposed conceptual map shows the interrelationships
among the ‘Focus’, ‘Alignment’, ‘Integration’ and ‘Review’ elements
of the FAIR model. As shown in Figure 2, for each one of the FAIR
elements, the central concepts are broken down and connected
to the twenty refined HK guidelines.
Each category, in turn, is depicted as part of the major dimen-
sion of Process. The same rationale applies to the dimension of
Context. Finally, there is an interrelationship between the dimen-
sions of Context and Process. That relationship can be seen as a
property of mutual feedback.
The context-related elements also work as the basis for the
implementation of other systems and processes of the organ-
isation. Thus, these elements do not belong exclusively to HK,
but to a greater context associated with the organisation-wide
management model. However, these elements are considered
here as ‘ground elements’ for HK implementations.
The context dimension applied here is limited to the internal
context of the company’s management. Although the model
developed in this work does not prescribe contingency actions,
the culture and capabilities-related elements are aspects that may
lead to a better management of organisational design change.
A final point to be observed is that all the elements presented
in Figure 2 are intended to have the same weight. They are all
considered as necessary conditions for implementing HK. Hence,
the model developed in this work does not establish precedence
or hierarchical relationships among its elements.
 PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   853

Figure 2. Hoshin Kanri conceptual map.

5.  Research results discussion and conflicting points from the literature, and a final comment
and stand point. The critical analysis is enriched with literature
The proposed model for systematising HK implementation
related to associated topics, rather than only HK literature.
through a set of guidelines that express essential principles
should be universal and able to be applied regardless of the con-
text in which the organisation operates. One might argue, as do
Hilton and Sohal (2012) and Yang and Yeh (2007), that the best Box 1
implementation of HK is one that applies advanced manage- Experts agreed that the most important underlying concept of
ment methodologies such as Six Sigma as supportive capabili- Guideline #1 was initially missing: the concept of organizational
ties for the achievement of annual policies. However, as pointed learning. This is mainly due to the fact that Hoshin Kanri has a
by Akao (2004) and Witcher and Chau (2014), the complexity great focus on the means that lead to the ends.
degree that is associated to this kind of methodology may derail
its implementation in many organisations – depending on the
organisation’s managerial maturity or even on its business pri-
Anand et al. (2009), Witcher, Chau, and Harding (2008), Witcher
orities. Guidelines should address, thus, guiding principles that
and Chau (2007) and Bessant and Francis (1999) observe that
can be implemented in different ways, allowing organisations
continuous improvement could be considered as a dynamic capa-
to implement these principles by the adoption of techniques of
bility, and organisational learning may be its advanced imple-
any level of complexity.
mentation stage. Although Anand et al. (2009) claim that there
Table 6 describes the full statement of all guidelines developed
is no direct causal link, Guideline #1 could be seen as a higher-or-
in this study. The discussion of the summary of changes in each
der dynamic capability – in accordance with Witcher, Chau, and
guideline is presented next.
Harding (2008) – and which is nested in the context of HK for inte-
The discussion will be developed taking into account inter-
grating continuous improvement to organisational learning. The
views refinement results, presented in ‘Boxes’, reinforcing aspects
854   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
concept of standardisation, which is a central foundation of TQM
and Lean applications, was also highlighted by various experts,
and it was considered to be implicit in the notion of continuous
improvement and organisational learning.
Box 2
Guideline #2 was derived from discussions about Guideline #1.
Several experts claimed that a continuous improvement culture
and an organizational learning focus are not enough. It is also
necessary to develop a high-impact performance orientation,
with a concern on achieving breakthrough performance
improvements rather than only incremental advances.
This guideline emerged as a new guideline from the experts’
recommendations. It makes explicit the notion of developing a
culture of high-impact performance orientation. Although the
HK literature describes HK as a strategic framework to deploy and
implement breakthrough (high impact) objectives, it mixes this
notion to the notion of continuous improvement – often associ-
ated to incremental progress. Thus, the literature does not make
clear the perception pointed out by the experts within the pres-
ent study. This is a perception that is more aligned to a western
way of strategic management: the appropriate selection, design,
implementation and use of measures to drive strategic change.
This contribution brought an important balance to the model,
so that it is closer to its aim of being universally applicable and is
also supported by the works of Vieira Marinho and Cagnin (2014),
Tennant and Roberts (2001b) and Wood and Munshi (1991),
although some authors such as Akao (2004) consider continuous
improvement as the main fundamental aspect for the successful
implementation of HK.
Box 3
Guideline #3 shows that active involvement of leadership is a
consensus among experts since the first refinement iteration.
The notion of mobilization was added to the guideline to
emphasize the importance of leadership in ‘animating’ the
Hoshin Kanri process.
Chiarini (2011b) and Kondo (1998) highlight the importance
of an active leadership for deploying policies, but according to
Linderman et al. (2004), knowledge management in its essence
is a key factor for mobilisation. Active leadership for mobilising
the required actors is the main point in this guideline.
Box 4
Refinements of Guideline #4 led to an in-depth discussion
about the real meaning of Nemawashi. Nemawashi should be
seen as a way of dealing with conflict and reaching alignment,
not consensus.
Noorderhaven, Benders, and Keizer (2007) approach misun-
derstandings in Nemawashi ‘translation’ as a process for consen-
sus-building, although Witcher and Butterworth (2001) depict the
multifaceted characteristics of the concept. Nemawashi can lead
to consensus reaching, but the main purpose is to provide better
alignment, with the conciliation of the views of the different parts
involved in the decision-making process. The conciliation of the
different views may also lead to an enhancement of people’s sys-
temic understanding about the company’s processes.
Box 5
Guideline #5 evolved from the concept of matrix management.
Experts varied on the consideration of the main principle and
purpose of the original guideline, but the notion of systemic
view was kept practically intact through the refinement
process. For Hoshin Kanri requirements, the characteristic
that is highlighted here is the overall performance orientation
behavior among people in the organization. The lack of overall
performance orientation may lead to dysfunctional behavior.
Sisson and Elshennawy (2015) show the importance of organ-
ising HK as a matrix structure, but Masai, Parrend, and Zanni-
Merk (2015) and Tennant and Roberts (2001a) emphasise overall
performance orientation. In order not to mix different notions,
the cross-functional management aspect in matrix structures is
addressed in Guideline #7, while the overall performance orien-
tation is the key aspect for Guideline #5. The notion of systemic
view is supported by Bessant, Caffyn, and Gallagher (2001), who
describe a list of behaviours associated to advanced implemen-
tations of continuous improvement and learning organisations,
in which HK is nested. According to these authors, some of the
constituent behaviours include people’s understanding and
sharing of a holistic view about processes and people’s orienta-
tion to internal and external customers in their problem-solving
activities.
Box 6
Guideline #6 shows the necessity to develop people skills
and is another point of consensus. Experts considered that all
collaborators in an organization, irrespective of his/her position
in the hierarchical structure, should know at least the basics of
problem solving, teamwork and quality management methods.
Witcher and Butterworth (1999) claim that training for HK
implementation and management is a key factor, although
Tennant, Boonkrong, and Roberts (2002) define specific require-
ments for training. According to this guideline, employees should
be able to manage his/her own daily routine, which is a necessary
condition for performance targets to be achieved.
Box 7
Guideline #7 could be seen as a combination of the original
guidelines #5 and #6. The important notion here is that an
organization applying Hoshin Kanri should address systemic
issues by integrating functional areas.

Witcher and Chau (2008a) highlight the importance of
cross-functional teams for organisational integration, in the
context of developing dynamic capabilities. Mesquida and Mas
(2015), on the other side, state that the company should pay
attention to their interfaces for coordinating and implementing
an effective organisational integration. Rich and Hines (1998)
state that such a deliberate integration provide opportunities for
conflict to be identified and resolutions taken. In fact, it is a matter
of designing practices for better cross-functional management.
Cross-functional practices require cross-functional teams working
to troubleshoot activities and on bigger or smaller projects. Thus,
a structured approach for conducting project management is also
required. A final observation is that the conduction of cross-func-
tional management is a key aspect that reinforce the other con-
text-related guidelines.
Box 8
The important notion behind Guideline #8 is that a long-term
vision should be disseminated throughout the company, at all
levels, and it needs to be meaningful for people at all levels.
Building a strategy implies sharing a common vision (Witcher
and Butterworth 1999; Tan and Platts 2004), although Mulligan,
Hatten, and Miller (1996) observe the importance of the contin-
gent-based approach for reviewing the strategic agenda. The
sense of meaningfulness implies that people must be able to
relate their daily work to the company long-term vision.
Box 9
Guideline #9 incorporates a change in the perception of what
is considered to be medium-term. It was claimed that for
organizations that operate in a highly dynamic and constantly
changing market, the time horizon could be a couple of years,
being contingent to market dynamics.
Witcher and Chau (2014) develop a strategic process that inte-
grates visions for long, medium and short terms, defining require-
ments for assessment in terms of ‘breakthrough goals’. Bessant,
Caffyn, and Gallagher (2001) highlight the importance of estab-
lishing a continuous improvement environment that creates the
fundamentals for innovation. The other important concept dis-
cussed in the experts’ evaluation is that the medium-term goals
should be designed to be measurable so as to provide a basis to
evaluate progress and encourage innovation.
Box 10
Guideline #10 gives the notion of ‘few vital’ policies for targeting
both the growth of the business and the improvement of its
critical areas.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   855
Akao (2004) defines HK in terms of policy deployment as a
whole, but Witcher (2003) incorporates change management as
an integrative mechanism. Continuous improvement and inno-
vation should be integrated in the deployment processes.
Box 11
For guideline #11, the notion of challenging policies is
discarded since it is hard to assess. In its place, another concept
is incorporated: the need to achieve sufficiency in policy
planning.
Witcher and Chau (2008b) position challenge as a key mecha-
nism for long term strategy development, but as stated by Vieira
Marinho and Cagnin (2014), pursuing alignment is what really
matters. That means that the combination of the planned policies
of a work team should be sufficient for the achievement of the
planned policies of the managerial levels.
Box 12
Guideline #12 states that people at operational levels should be
involved in the planning process for engagement purposes.
Tennant and Roberts (2001b) present the Catchball process as
the context for engaging all actors in the HK deployment process,
and Kondo (1998) provides the basis for a selective participation.
Linderman et al. (2004) comment that participation is related to
knowledge demand in processes. Hence, engagement for devel-
oping action plans is a key aspect to be observed.
Box 13
Guideline #13 shows the importance of the Catchball process
derived from the same conceptual discussion undertaken for
the Nemawashi concept. It is actually a process that should
occur in successive iterations, so as to deepen the planning of
policies. Without successive iterations, the Catchball process
loses the benefits provided through Nemawashi.
The main idea behind the Catchball process is not about con-
sensus in the sense of a democratic process. It is about foster-
ing Nemawashi with the aim of carrying out mutual adjustment
between managerial levels and functional areas (Tennant and
Roberts 2001b; Witcher, Chau, and Harding 2008).
Box 14
Guideline #14 is closely related to the necessity of developing
problem solving and troubleshooting capabilities.
856   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
Masai, Parrend, and Zanni-Merk (2015) pointed out that prob-
lem-solving capabilities are a key aspect for implementing lean
manufacturing. The systemic approach of ‘troubleshooting’, as
showed by Mast and Lokkerbol (2012), could be an interesting
way for the routine management of HK.
Box 15
Guideline #15 states that performance targets must be
incorporated into the management routines of processes and
projects.
Shah and Ward (2003) highlight the importance of performance
management systems for implementing Lean Manufacturing –
which is usually part of the HK implementation context, but
Soltero (2007) and Witcher and Chau (2012) go further in the sys-
temisation of HK deployment mechanisms. Performance meas-
urement and management should be approached in terms of
assessing progress for processes and projects.
Box 16
Guideline #16 is a straightforward version of the original
guideline #17, which states the necessity to assign
responsibilities over both functional and cross-functional
performance targets.
The notion of ownership over the targets and action plans
is a recurring perspective in HK literature. Defining HK actors’
involved roles is an important task, particularly for balancing
functional and cross-functional responsibilities (Witcher and
Butterworth 2001). According to Rich and Hines (1998), organ-
isation-wide targets address key cross-functional processes –
such as Product Development and processes associated with
the QCDE dimensions – that do not fit well within the traditional
hierarchical organisation structure and do not belong to one spe-
cific department, which implies that cross-functional practices
should be designed with a proper assignment of responsibility
over cross-functional targets.
Box 17
Guideline #17 had its original focus slightly changed. The focus
is placed on the necessity to develop a sense of discipline in
the management routines of work teams, to be followed on a
regularly basis.
Witcher and Butterworth (1999) show, in the case of Xerox,
how important discipline is at the work team level for guaran-
teeing the success of the Hoshin Kanri deployment process. In
fact, it is a necessary condition for deployment, but as stated by
Chau (2008) the sufficient condition will be established by organ-
isational effectiveness. The concept of empowerment is often
present in literature (Thiagarajan and Zairi 1997; Lee and Dale
1998; Kolehmainen 2010; Zimmerman 2010; Oakland 2011) and
may be seen as an advanced development of work teams in the
self-monitoring of targets and action plans within daily routines.
Box 18
Guideline #18 reached a much simpler statement than its
original version. The main concepts are considered as being the
preparation in advance for the report activities, the appropriate
interval of reviews, the necessity to carry out the performance
reviews all over the organization, and the necessity to conduct
the reviews in such a manner that the work teams and the
managers undertake a mutual discussion about the action
plans.
Reporting and assessing are key activities for developing the
process of HK. They create the real conditions for improvement,
change and active involvement of all stakeholders (Mulligan,
Hatten, and Miller 1996; Tan and Platts 2004; Kim, Sting, and Loch
2014). A common practice mentioned by the experts is the use of
‘bowling charts’ for reviewing progress, in a manner that special
attention is given to the red targets in the chart. The discussion
goes around how to get the plan back on track, with no time
for blaming or justifying, but rather with focus on solving the
problems. Hoshin Kanri’s performance reviews should foster bot-
tom-up feedbacks throughout the organisation. This multi-lay-
ered bottom-up nature of performance reviews is a core concept
of dynamic performance measurement systems (Bititci, Turner,
and Begemann 2000; Kolehmainen 2010).
Box 19
Guideline #19 highlights the importance of visual management
for information leading to action.
It is not enough to only report on performance. Workplaces
should make use of visual management in a dynamic and inter-
active way, so that the information for their decision processes
is as up-to-date as possible (Witcher 2002; Smart, Maddern, and
Maull 2009; Kim, Sting, and Loch 2014). Based on Henri (2006) and
Bourne, Kennerley, and Franco-Santos (2005), it may be suggested
that a ‘diagnostic use’ of information (oriented to controlling) is
not enough; an ‘interactive use’ of information (oriented to stim-
ulating learning and dialogue) is recommended.
Box 20
Guideline #20 shows that experts considered that the most
important concept on the top management diagnosis is
hearing and understanding the difficulties of the work areas, so
as to provide support, aiming at improving the conditions for
the work teams to achieve their performance targets.

Annual reviews for top executive managers are an important
aspect for HK, a point that is clearly highlighted by Witcher, Chau,
and Harding (2006, 2008), but it is not a matter of strategic control
as pointed out by Ittner and Larcker (1997) and Chiarini (2011b).
It is, in fact, a process for understanding requirements for the
achievement of performance targets, as can be seen in the frame-
work developed by Witcher and Chau (2012, 2014), and Witcher,
Chau, and Harding (2008).
Top management representatives should foster discussions
with working areas to enhance learning about management
practices, both for top management representatives and to work
teams. This could even lead to the sharing of best practices across
areas. It is clearly a practice to benefit organisational learning,
which is addressed in guideline #1.
6. Conclusion
The main objective of this work was to refine and discuss a set
of guidelines for Hoshin Kanri to help in its implementation. This
was accomplished through the design and implementation of
an empirical study based on expert interviews. The study was
designed so that guidelines were refined in successive iterations
until they reached a satisfactory level of convergence. The com-
pleteness of the model was also assessed, so that new guide-
lines could be added to the model.
The original set of twenty-three (23) guidelines was refined
and updated, resulting in a set of twenty (20) guidelines. Five
(5) guidelines from the original model were eliminated, whereas
two (2) new guidelines were added for completeness. The study
also generated methodological contributions for the process of
systematising guidelines.
The study allows verifying important aspects of the model,
such as the concepts of Nemawashi, Catchball process, organ-
isational learning and high-impact performance orientation,
and their cultural assumptions and implications. Much of these
concepts have recently gained more attention, as more dynamic
performance management systems are needed, as pointed out
by Kolehmainen (2010).
A limitation to this work comes from the fact that the qualita-
tive study, although designed to minimise bias through a system-
atic and iterative process is still limited by the subjectivity of the
consulted experts. Although satisfactory results were achieved
with a high degree of convergence among a comprehensive set
of experts in successive refinements, the process is not exhaustive,
meaning that the consultation with other experts could lead to
different results.
These guidelines could help organisations that use or plan to
use Hoshin Kanri in two ways. Firstly, it is a baseline for diagnosing
how Hoshin Kanri is being used and how its application could
be improved in the organisation. Secondly, guidelines could be
seen as a set of requirements for a management system based
on Hoshin Kanri to be designed and deployed. Future works
could explore how the guidelines could be used in both of these
situations.
Lastly, it is worth noting that these guidelines could help
develop a maturity framework for Hoshin Kanri application.
Different organisations would typically develop different prac-
tices to comply with the guidelines, and different practices could
address problems of different complexity. Hence, by studying
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   857
these practices in the context of these guidelines could provide
insight on the evolution of Hoshin Kanri application practices.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes on contributors
Willian Giordani da Silveira is a consultant working at
Gestão Inteligente Consultoria Empresarial and an
adjunct professor at OPET College, both in Brazil. He has
participated in several projects involving Lean
Manufacturing and Total Quality Management since
2010. He holds a master’s degree in Industrial and
Systems Engineering from PUCPR (2014) and a bachelor’s
degree in Production Engineering, also from PUCPR
(2009). His interests include lean operations manage-
ment, continuous improvement and quality management.
Edson Pinheiro de Lima is a full professor at the Industrial
and Systems Engineering Graduate Program of PUCPR
and an associate professor of the Industrial and Systems
Engineering Graduate Program at UTFPR, both in Brazil.
He was director of the Industrial and Systems Engineering
Graduate Program at PUCPR from 2009 to 2010. He spent
one year as a visiting academic at the Operations
Management Group of the Warwick Business School in
2007. He holds a doctorate degree in Industrial
Engineering from UFSC, a master’s degree in Electrical Engineering from
UNICAMP and a bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from UTFPR. His
research and teaching are in operations strategy, performance manage-
ment, strategic management, organisational design and sustainable
operations.
Sergio E Gouvea da Costa is a full professor at the
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program of
PUCPR and a associate professor of the Industrial and
Systems Engineering Graduate Program at UTFPR, both
in Brazil. He served as President of the International
Federation for Production Research from 2013 to 2015.
He spent one year as a visiting scholar at the Edward P
Fitts Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering
of the North Carolina State University in 2009. He holds a
doctorate degree in Production Engineering from USP (2003), doing part of
his work as a visiting scholar at the Institute for Manufacturing of the
University of Cambridge. He also holds a master’s degree in Electrical
Engineering from UNICAMP (1993) and a bachelor’s degree in Industrial
Electrical Engineering from UTFPR (1989). His research and teaching are in
operations strategy, energy management, lean production, performance
management systems and sustainable operations.
Fernando Deschamps is a associate professor at both the
Industrial and Systems Engineering Graduate Program of
PUCPR and the Mechanical Engineering Department of
UFPR, both in Brazil. He holds a doctoral degree in
Industrial and Systems Engineering from PUCPR (2013),
doing part of his work as a visiting scholar at the Grado
Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at
Virginia Tech. He also holds a master’s degree in Electrical
Engineering from UFSC (2004) and bachelor’s degrees in
Automation and Control Engineering from UFSC (2002) and in Business
Management from UDESC (2004). His research and teaching are in enterprise
and organisational engineering, including systems integration, enterprise
architecture and process and project management.
ORCID
Fernando Deschamps   http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5269-3721
858   W. GIORDANI DA SILVEIRA ET AL.
References
Akao, Y. 2004. Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM. New York:
Productivity Press.
Anand, G., P. T. Ward, M. V. Tatikonda, and D. A. Schilling. 2009. “Dynamic
Capabilities through Continuous Improvement Infrastructure.” Journal of
Operations Management 27 (6): 444–461.
Asan, Ş. S., and M. Tanyaş. 2007. “Integrating Hoshin Kanri and the Balanced
Scorecard for Strategic Management: The Case of Higher Education.” Total
Quality Management & Business Excellence 18 (9): 999–1014.
Bessant, J., S. Caffyn, and M. Gallagher. 2001. “An Evolutionary Model of
Continuous Improvement Behaviour.” Technovation 21 (2): 67–77.
Bessant, J., and D. Francis. 1999. “Developing Strategic Continuous
Improvement Capability.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 19 (11): 1106–1119.
Bititci, U. S., T. Turner, and C. Begemann. 2000. “Dynamics of Performance
Measurement Systems.” International Journal of Operations & Production
Management 20 (6): 692–704.
Bourne, M. C. S., M. Kennerley, and M. Franco-Santos. 2005. “Managing
through Measures: A Study of Impact on Performance.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 16 (4): 373–395.
Bourne, M. C. S., J. F. Mills, M. Wilcox, A. D. Neely, and K. W. Platts. 2000.
“Designing, Implementing and Updating Performance Measurement
Systems.” International Journal of Operations & Production Management 20
(7): 754–771.
Bourne, M. C. S., A. D. Neely, K. W. Platts, and J. F. Mills. 2002. “The Success and
Failure of Performance Measurement Initiatives.” International Journal of
Operations & Production Management 22 (11): 1288–1310.
Bryman, A. 1995. Quantity and Quality in Social Research. London: Unwin
Hyman.
Cardoso, R. R., E. Pinheiro de Lima, and S. E. Gouvea da Costa. 2012.
“Identifying Organizational Requirements for the Implementation of
Advanced Manufacturing Technologies (AMT).” Journal of Manufacturing
Systems 31 (3): 367–378.
Chau, V. S. 2008. “The Relationship of Strategic Performance Management to
Team Strategy, Company Performance and Organizational Effectiveness.”
Team Performance Management: An International Journal 14 (3/4): 113–
117.
Chiarini, A. 2011a. “Integrating Lean Thinking into ISO 9001: A First Guideline.”
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2 (2): 96–117.
Chiarini, A. 2011b. “Japanese Total Quality Control, TQM, Deming’s System
of Profound Knowledge, BPR, Lean and Six Sigma: Comparison and
Discussion.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 2 (4): 332–355.
Ćwiklicki, M., and H. Obora. 2011. “Hoshin Kanri: Policy Management in
Japanese Subsidiaries Based in Poland.” Business, Management and
Education 9 (2): 216–235.
Deschamps, F., E. Pinheiro de Lima, E. Van Aken, S. E. Gouvea da Costa,
and E. A. Portela Santos. 2013. “Development of Enterprise Engineering
Guidelines for Enterprise Diagnosis and Design.” Proceedings of the 2013
Industrial and Systems Engineering Research Conference: 807–816.
Dombrowski, U., and T. Mielke. 2013. “Lean Leadership–Fundamental
Principles and their Application.” Procedia CIRP 7: 569–574.
Dubois, A., and L. E. Gadde. 2002. “Systematic Combining: An Abductive
Approach to Case Research.” Journal of Business Research 55 (7): 553–560.
Feurer, R., K. Chaharbaghi, and J. Wargin. 1995. “Analysis of Strategy
Formulation and Implementation at Hewlett-Packard.” Management
Decision 33 (10): 4–16.
Franco-Santos, M., and M. Bourne. 2005. “An Examination of the Literature
Relating to Issues Affecting How Companies Manage through Measures.”
Production Planning & Control 16 (2): 114–124.
GOAL/QPC Research Committee. 1994. “Hoshin Planning: A Planning System
for Implementing Total Quality Management.” In Readings in Total Quality
Management, edited by H. I. Costin. Montreal: The Dryden Press.
Henri, J.-F. 2006. “Management Control Systems and Strategy: A Resource-
based Perspective.” Accounting, Organizations and Society 31: 529–558.
Hilton, R. J., and A. Sohal. 2012. “A Conceptual Model for the Successful
Deployment of Lean Six Sigma.” International Journal of Quality &
Reliability Management 29 (1): 54–70.
Hrebiniak, L. G. 2006. “Obstacles to Effective Strategy Implementation.”
Organizational Dynamics 35 (1): 12–31.
Ittner, C. D., and D. F. Larcker. 1997. “Quality Strategy, Strategic Control
Systems, and Organizational Performance.” Accounting, Organizations and
Society 22 (3-4): 293–314.
Jackson, T. L. 2006. Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise: Developing Competitive
Capabilities and Managing Profit. New York: Productivity Press.
Jadhav, J. R., S. S. Mantha, and S. B. Rane. 2014. “Exploring Barriers in Lean
Implementation.” International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 5 (2): 122–148.
Jolayemi, J. K. 2008. “Hoshin Kanri and Hoshin Process: A Review and
Literature Survey.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 19 (3):
295–320.
Jolayemi, J. K. 2009. “Policy Deployment: A Review and Comparisons of Two
Best Practices Models.” Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 20
(8): 877–902.
Kim, Y. H., F. J. Sting, and C. H. Loch. 2014. “Top-down, Bottom-up, or Both?
Toward an Integrative Perspective on Operations Strategy Formation.”
Journal of Operations Management 32 (7-8): 462–474.
Kolehmainen, K. 2010. “Dynamic Strategic Performance Measurement
Systems: Balancing Empowerment and Alignment.” Long Range Planning
43 (4): 527–554.
Kondo, Y. 1998. “Hoshin Kanri – A Participative Way of Quality Management
in Japan.” The TQM Magazine 10 (6): 425–431.
Kornfeld, Bernard J., and Sami Kara. 2011. “Project portfolio selection
in continuous improvement.” International Journal of Operations &
Production Management 31 (10): 1071–1088.
Lau, F. 1999. “Toward a Framework for Action Research in Information
Systems Studies.” Information Technology and People 12 (2): 148–176.
Lee, R. G., and B. G. Dale. 1998. “Policy Deployment: An Examination of the
Theory.” International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management 15 (5):
520–540.
Lee, R. G., and B. G. Dale. 1999. “Policy Deployment: A Case Study Analysis.”
Production Planning & Control 10 (5): 493–501.
Lewis, M. W. 1998. “Iterative Triangulation: A Theory Development Process
Using Existing Case Studies.” Journal of Operations Management 16 (4):
455–469.
Linderman, K., R. G. Schroeder, S. Zaheer, C. Liedtke, and A. S. Choo. 2004.
“Integrating Quality Management Practices with Knowledge Creation
Processes.” Journal of Operations Management 22 (6): 589–607.
Marsden, N. 1998. “The Use of Hoshin Kanri Planning and Deployment
Systems in the Service Sector: An Exploration.” Total Quality Management
9 (4–5): 167–171.
Masai, P., P. Parrend, and C. Zanni-Merk. 2015. “Towards a Formal Model of
the Lean Enterprise.” Procedia Computer Science 60 (1): 226–235.
Mast, J., and J. Lokkerbol. 2012. “An Analysis of the Six Sigma DMAIC Method
from the Perspective of Problem Solving.” International Journal of
Production Economics 139 (2): 604–614.
McAdam, Rodney, Denis Leonard, Joan Henderson, and Shirley-Ann Hazlett.
2008. “A Grounded Theory Research Approach to Building and Testing
TQM Theory in Operations Management.” Omega 36 (5): 825–837.
Mellat-Parast, Mahour. 2015. “A Longitudinal Assessment of the Linkages
Among the Baldrige Criteria Using Independent Reviewers’ Scores.”
International Journal of Production Economics 164: 24–34.
Mesquida, A. L., and A. Mas. 2015. “Integrating IT Service Management
Requirements into the Organizational Management System.” Computer
Standards and Interfaces 37 (1): 80–91.
Mulligan, P., K. Hatten, and J. Miller. 1996. “From Issue-based Planning to
Hoshin: Different Styles for Different Situations.” Long Range Planning 29
(4): 473–484.
Neely, A. 2005. “The Evolution of Performance Measurement Research.”
International Journal of Operations & Production Management 25 (12):
1264–1277.
Noorderhaven, N. G., J. Benders, and A. B. Keizer. 2007. “Comprehensiveness
versus Pragmatism: Consensus at the Japanese-Dutch Interface.” Journal
of Management Studies 44 (8): 1349–1370.
Nudurupati, S. S., U. S. Bititci, V. Kumar, and F. T. S. Chan. 2011. “State of the Art
Literature Review on Performance Measurement.” Computers & Industrial
Engineering 60 (2): 279–290.
Oakland, J. 2011. “Leadership and Policy Deployment: The Backbone of TQM.”
Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 22 (5): 517–534.
Ojiako, U., and S. Maguire. 2008. “Success Criteria for Systems Led
Transformation.” Industrial Management and Data Systems 108 (7): 887–908.

Osada, H. 1998. “Strategic Management by Policy in Total Quality
Management.” Strategic Change 7: 277–287.
Pettigrew, A. M. 1987. “Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm.”
Journal of Management Studies 24 (6): 649–670.
Pettigrew, A. M. 2012. “Context and Action in the Transformation of the Firm:
A Reprise.” Journal of Management Studies 49 (7): 1304–1328.
Platts, K. W. 1994. “Characteristics of Methodologies for Manufacturing
Strategy Formulation.” Computer Integrated Manufacturing Systems 7 (2):
93–99.
Rich, N., and P. Hines. 1998. “Purchasing Structures, Roles, Processes and
Strategy.” European Journal of Purchasing & Supply Management 4: 51–61.
Roberts, P., and C. Tennant. 2003. “Application of the Hoshin Kanri
Methodology at a Higher Education Establishment in the UK.” The TQM
Magazine 15 (2): 82–87.
Schein, E. H. 2004. Organizational Culture and Leadership. 3rd ed. p. cm. San
Francisco, CA: The Jossey-Bass business & management series.
Shah, R., and P. T. Ward. 2003. “Lean Manufacturing: Context, Practice Bundles,
and Performance.” Journal of Operations Management 21 (2): 129–149.
Silveira, W. G., F. Deschamps, E. Pinheiro de Lima, S. E. Gouvea da Costa.
2013. “Development of Guidelines to Base Hoshin Kanri Application.” In
Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Production Research,
Iguassu Falls.
Sisson, J., and A. Elshennawy. 2015. “Achieving Success with Lean.”
International Journal of Lean Six Sigma 6 (3): 263–280.
Smart, P. A., H. Maddern, and R. S. Maull. 2009. “Understanding Business
Process Management: Implications for Theory and Practice.” British
Journal of Management 20 (4): 491–507.
Soltero, C. 2007. “Hoshin Kanri for Improved Environmental Performance.”
Environmental Quality Management 16 (4): 35–54.
Tan, K. H., and K. W. Platts. 2004. “Operationalising Strategy: Mapping
Manufacturing Variables.” International Journal of Production Economics
89 (3): 379–393.
Tennant, C. 2007. “Measuring Business Transformation at a Small
Manufacturing Enterprise in the UK.” Measuring Business Excellence 11 (4):
66–74.
Tennant, C., M. Boonkrong, and P. Roberts. 2002. “The Design of a Training
Programme Measurement Model.” Journal of European Industrial Training
26 (5): 230–240.
Tennant, C., and P. Roberts. 2001a. “Hoshin Kanri: A Tool for Strategic Policy
Deployment.” Knowledge and Process Management 8 (4): 262–269.
Tennant, C., and P. Roberts. 2001b. “Hoshin Kanri: Implementing the Catchball
Process.” Long Range Planning 34 (3): 287–308.
Thiagarajan, T., and M. Zairi. 1997. “A Review of Total Quality Management
in Practice: Understanding the Fundamentals through Examples of Best
Practice Applications – Part I.” The TQM Magazine 9 (4): 270–286.
Tiwari, A., C. Turner, and P. Sackett. 2007. “A Framework for Implementing Cost
and Quality Practices within Manufacturing.” Journal of Manufacturing
Technology Management 18 (6): 731–760.
PRODUCTION PLANNING & CONTROL   859
Vieira Marinho, S., and C. Cagnin. 2014. “The Roles of FTA in Improving
Performance Measurement Systems to Enable Alignment between
Business Strategy and Operations: Insights from Three Practical Cases.”
Futures 59 (1): 50–61.
Witcher, B. J. 2002. “Hoshin Kanri: A Study of Practice in the UK.” Managerial
Auditing Journal 17 (7): 390–396.
Witcher, B. J. 2003. “Policy Management of Strategy (Hoshin Kanri).” Strategic
Change 12 (2): 83–94.
Witcher, B. J., and R. Butterworth. 1999. “Hoshin Kanri: How Xerox Manages.”
Long Range Planning 32 (3): 323–332.
Witcher, B. J., and R. Butterworth. 2001. “Hoshin Kanri: Policy Management
in Japanese Owned UK Subsidiaries.” Journal of Management Studies 38
(5): 651–674.
Witcher, B., and V. Chau. 2007. “Balanced Scorecard and Hoshin Kanri:
Dynamic Capabilities for Managing Strategic Fit.” Management Decision
45 (3): 518–538.
Witcher, B., and V. Chau. 2008a. “Dynamic Capabilities for Strategic Team
Performance Management: The Case of Nissan.” Team Performance
Management 14 (3/4): 179–191.
Witcher, B., and V. Chau. 2008b. “Contrasting Uses of Balanced Scorecards:
Case Studies at Two UK Companies.” Strategic Change 17 (3-4): 101–114.
Witcher, B., and V. Chau. 2012. “Varieties of Capitalism and Strategic
Management: Managing Performance in Multinationals after the Global
Financial Crisis.” British Journal of Management 23 (4): S58–S73.
Witcher, B., and V. Chau. 2014. Strategic Management: Principles and Practice.
2nd ed. London: Cengage Learning.
Witcher, B., V. Chau, and P. Harding. 2006. “Top Executive Audits: Strategic
Reviews of Operational Activities.” Managerial Auditing Journal 22 (1): 95–105.
Witcher, B., V. Chau, and P. Harding. 2008. “Dynamic Capabilities: Top
Executive Audits and Hoshin Kanri at Nissan South Africa.” International
Journal of Operations and Production Management 28 (6): 540–561.
Wood, G. R., and K. F. Munshi. 1991. “Hoshin Kanri: A Systematic Approach
to Breakthrough Improvement.” Total Quality Management 2 (3): 213–226.
Yang, T.-M., and C.-T. Su. 2007. “Application of Hoshin Kanri for Productivity
Improvement in a Semiconductor Manufacturing Company.” Journal of
Manufacturing Technology Management 18 (6): 761–775.
Yang, C.-C., and T.-M. Yeh. 2007. “An Integrated Model of Hoshin Management
and Six Sigma in High-tech Firms.” Total Quality Management & Business
Excellence 18 (6): 653–665.
Yang, C.-C., and T.-M. Yeh. 2009. “An Integrated Implementation Model
of Strategic Planning, BSC and Hoshin Management.” Total Quality
Management & Business Excellence 20 (9): 989–1002.
Yazdi, A. K., and B. Mennatib. 2011. “House of Excellence: Better BSC Practice
through QFD plus Hoshin Kanri.” Australian Journal of Basic and Applied
Sciences 5 (6): 1151–1159.
Zimmerman, B. L. 2010. “What Do We Mean by ‘Empowerment?’.” Policy &
Practice 68 (2): 42.