Vinardi 2023

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
Carine Vinardi
Business Strategy
with Hoshin Kanri
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences
and Technology
SpringerBriefs present concise summaries of cutting-edge research and practical
applications across a wide spectrum of fields. Featuring compact volumes of 50 to
125 pages, the series covers a range of content from professional to academic.
Typical publications can be:
● A timely report of state-of-the art methods
● An introduction to or a manual for the application of mathematical or computer
techniques
● A bridge between new research results, as published in journal articles
● A snapshot of a hot or emerging topic
● An in-depth case study
● A presentation of core concepts that students must understand in order to make
independent contributions
SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,

standard publishing contracts, standardized manuscript preparation and formatting
guidelines, and expedited production schedules.
On the one hand, SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology are
devoted to the publication of fundamentals and applications within the different
classical engineering disciplines as well as in interdisciplinary fields that recently
emerged between these areas. On the other hand, as the boundary separating
fundamental research and applied technology is more and more dissolving, this
series is particularly open to trans-disciplinary topics between fundamental science
and engineering.
Indexed by EI-Compendex, SCOPUS and Springerlink.
Carine Vinardi
Business Strategy
with Hoshin Kanri
Carine Vinardi
Aix en Provence, France
ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology
ISBN 978-3-031-20962-8 ISBN 978-3-031-20963-5 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether
the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or
information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar
methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book
are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or
the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any
errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional
claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
Acknowledgments
The subject that inspired me throughout my past books and my thesis too has been
the sustainable efficiency and performance of organizations, whatever their size,
primarily when it addresses what makes sense for people.
Unsurprisingly, this, my third book, falls in that category too.
In this extra professional project, I would like to thank my daughter Mariane and
my husband Richard particularly. Once again, they have given me their unfailing
support in this venture because of its burden on already scarce personal resources.
Special thanks also goes to my kind but demanding reviewers: my husband
Richard, my colleague and friend Audrey Dauvet, and also Benoit Eynard, who
was my Ph.D. thesis supervisor at the time, and who gave his precious contributions
once more.
My gratitude goes to all who agreed to give me their time to answer my questions
and who participated in the book through their interviews: Larry Culp, Masaaki Imai,
Daniel Hager, Pete McKabe, Roland Vardanega, Benoit Martin, Aurélien Levallet,
and Frederic Petrus.
Thank you also to a long list of people who have contributed through reflection,
contacts, and references. Particular thanks goes to team at the Kaizen Institute Europe
and Thierry Martin from OpexPartners.
Thank you to Francesco Cipollone, who undertook the translation of this book,
and the delicate and demanding challenge of negotiating around the French original
while hoping to satisfy you, the English language reader.
And lastly, my thanks also goes to Springer Nature, my editor, who trusted me
with this publication.
vii
Contents
1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Definition and Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
3 A Little Bit of History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
4 Current State of Strategy Deployment Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.1 Necessary Inputs and the Analytical Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
4.2 A Few Key Strategic Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
4.2.1 Focus on Management by Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
4.2.2 Focus on the Balanced Scorecard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.3 Contributions of Hoshin Kanri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
5 Principles and Key Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.1 General Presentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
5.2 Key Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.1 Defining the Missions and Vision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.2.2 Sharing the Feedback of Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5.2.3 Nemawashi: Trust and Organization to Share
Propositions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
5.2.4 Defining and Designing the Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
5.2.5 Executing and Correcting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3 Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
6 Key Connected Elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.1 PDCA Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
6.2 The “Z” Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6.2.1 Principle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
ix
x Contents
6.2.2 Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6.2.3 Skills and Competencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.3 Problem Analysis and Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
6.4 Management Using the Reversed Pyramid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
6.5 Key Performance Indicator Tree . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
6.6 Specificities of Operational and Functional Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
7 Using Hoshin Kanri with Other Management Rhythms or Key
Periods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
7.1 Linking Hoshin Kanri to Standard Visual Management . . . . . . . . 51
7.2 Importance of Daily Performance Management
for Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
7.3 Connection of Management Rhythms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
7.4 Time Balance Between Management Rhythms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
8 Engaging in Hoshin Kanri . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1 How to Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1.1 Different Starting Point from a Performance
Management Maturity Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
8.1.2 Context to Take into Account . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
8.1.3 Motivation and Sense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
8.2 How to Support the Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8.3 Who Can Support the Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
9 Key Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.1 From Strategic Objectives to Strategic Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
9.2 From Strategic Actions to Strategic Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
9.3 Bowling Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
10 Facilitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
10.1 Defining Strategic Action Plans Through Action Work Out . . . . . 87
10.2 Strategic Reviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
10.2.1 Content, Frequency, and Problem-Solving . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
10.2.2 Consistency of Management of Strategic
and Non-Strategic Action Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
10.3 Rewarding Efficiency and Risk-Taking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
11 Progress and Sustainability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
11.1 How to Take into Account Cultural Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
11.2 Local Deployment and Progressing Cascading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Contents xi
11.3 Leadership Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

11.4 Conditions for Success and Factors of Failure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
12 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Chapter 1
Introduction
Abstract The success in defining and implementing strategy is at the heart of the
challenges of organizations and companies. But what exactly is strategy? It can be
described as a set of defined actions aiming for an ambitious objective that would
otherwise be impossible to achieve.
The word “strategy” comes from the Greek “strategos” (“stratos”: army; “agos”:
I lead), meaning literally “the art of leading an army”. The first known writings on
strategy go back several centuries before Jesus Christ, and one of the oldest is from
ancient China, with “The art of war” by Sun Tzu.
The success in defining and implementing strategy is at the heart of the challenges
of organizations and companies. But what exactly is strategy? It can be described as
a set of defined actions aiming for an ambitious objective that would otherwise be
impossible to achieve.
The word “strategy” comes from the Greek “strategos” (“stratos”: army; “agos”:
I lead), meaning literally “the art of leading an army”. The first known writings on
strategy go back several centuries before Jesus Christ, and one of the oldest is from
ancient China, with “The art of war” by Sun Tzu.
If the origin of strategy is mainly attributed to the army and war, the concept of
strategy is found early on in games. The game of go, whose ancestor is the Chinese
Wei qi, was probably created in the twelfth century before Jesus Christ and the game
of chess probably came from India in the sixth century. These games relied on a
series of anticipated and considered actions and were a way for top executives to be
educated to achieve their goals.
But strategy officially stepped into companies in the 1960s. At that time, in the
USA, officers were being hired by large corporations. Strategy was at the heart of
senior executive and manager training, as they were the ones who were in command
to lead companies.
When strategies fail, it can be for a variety of problems, which can be grouped
into three main categories:
© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

C. Vinardi, Business Strategy with Hoshin Kanri,
SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_1
2 1 Introduction
● Firstly, the defined strategy therefore, the direction and its objectives to be reached.
These choices are at odds facing an ever-uncertain future;
● secondly, the evaluation of both the initial situation and the situation to be achieved
because that identifies the gaps by which an adequate action plan will be defined
to fill them (in terms of action, resources, and planning);
● lastly, even if both the direction and the action plan are correctly laid out, the
execution should not be forgotten, as it is critical with its learning loops that must
be undertaken at each step.
Many articles, books, and other teaching material focus on the definition
of strategy, particularly the definition of direction and objectives. Few refer to
adequately dealing with the current state to determine the gap to focus on the best
action plan, and even fewer make recommendations about its execution.
However, reality should invite organizations to switch their focus. In 1999, the
cofounder of Google remarked, “I hate processes, but a good idea together with a
remarkable execution makes miracles”. In 2014, Carlos Ghosn, who was the head
of Renault Nissan, said in an article published by the University of Stanford that to
succeed, “Five percent of the challenge is the strategy. Ninety-five percent is the
execution” (Ghosn 2014). In 2018, Carlos Tavares, in charge of the Stellantis group,
stated the same (Tavares 2018), which was taken up again by Luca De Meo, who
took the head of Renault in 2021 (De Meo 2021).
Scientific literature somewhat confirms the statements expressed by these three
top executives. Also, 73% of leaders believe that the difficulty of implementing a
strategy surpasses that of formulating it (Cândido and Santos 2015).
Returning to the military field, it is obvious to any general, wherever they may be
in the world, that it is vital to consider the terrain, the troops, and the available equip-
ment. Similarly, no general would ever engage in battle without a (strategic) plan of
attack and would never let its army engage in combat without following all the execu-
tion steps of the defined plan, each stage of the implementation implying commu-
nication and adjustments if necessary. Likely, military leaders would not proceed
this way if there were a simpler, less demanding, and just-as-effective alternative to
define and carry out strategic plans.
This analogy with military fundamentals by which strategy success or failure can
be defined allows me to illustrate some of the critical aspects of Hoshin kanri, which
I will share throughout this book. It will help you understand the benefits gained
from the method and also help you prepare before any commitment.
As we will see, the Hoshin kanri approach is different from others, in particular,
because it focuses on the manner of prompting communication to bridge where
definitions are made with where strategy execution is carried out, and also because
it connects the concrete actions of teams to the vision of senior executives, while
ensuring effective execution.
Some companies have successfully applied this method for decades. Taking just
two examples, we have Toyota, where Hoshin kanri is the heart of the Toyota Produc-
tion System, and Danaher. This American company incorporated the principles for
decades and is renowned as a model for success in terms of durable performance.
1 Introduction 3
Whereas there are hundreds of thousands of scientific publications on Lean1

worldwide, only twenty or so are based on Hoshin kanri (Vinardi 2019).
The Hoshin kanri approach is still seldom shared and deployed for several reasons.
Firstly, because the method is not visible: it is hard to understand because it is
embedded deep in the management of a company, and indeed it is difficult to separate
the “wheat from the chaff”. In addition, companies are not willing to easily share
their secrets of success in the definition and implementation of their strategy. Also,
as we will see, not all top executives and leaders are always ready: the Hoshin kanri
approach is very demanding on their posture, management mode, and investment to
go out and meet the teams on the lowest level.
The primary scientific references used to support the arguments in this book are
in English, French, and Spanish, as well as some prominent publications on the
subject. I have also endeavored to share my experience, which I acquired over more
than fifteen years, both as a manager and advisor to senior executives and leaders on
implementing the approach. Lastly, I will also share eight invaluable supporting
contributions from my interviews with leaders of various organizations who agreed
to share their experiences with me in complete transparency.
Among them, we have five top executives with diverse experience in the subject
and whose companies vary in culture and size.
Two, at the head of multinationals:
Larry CULP CEO of General Electric since 2018 (265 000 employees, turnover of
77 bn in 2019) and former CEO from DANAHER from 2001 to 2014
(60 000 employees, turnover of $17.9 bn in 2019)
• Larry has a broad experience of Hoshin kanri, which he acquired at
Danaher
Roland VARDANEGA Member of the Managing Board and Executive Vice President,
Manufacturing and Components of PSA Peugeot Citroën (now
called Stellantis) until 2010 (209 000 employees, turnover of e56 bn
in 2010)
• Roland introduced the deployment of Hoshin kanri, influenced by
his JV with Toyota
Two, at the head of intermediate-sized companies:

Daniel HAGER CEO of HAGER GROUP since 2008 (12 100 employees, turnover
of e2.6 bn in 2021)
• Daniel introduced the deployment of Hoshin kanri in the group for
several years
Pete McCABE CEO of CIOX HEALTH since 2021 (1 000 employees, turnover of
over $500 m in 2020)
• Pete gained his first experience in Hoshin kanri at GE before
deploying it at Ciox Health
And one, at the head of a start-up:
1 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (1).

4 1 Introduction
Benoit MARTIN CEO and founder of POPCARTE since 2005 (start-up of 30

employees)
• Benoit has several years of experience in Hoshin kanri
The first five contributions are supplemented by those of the following two site
directors in organizations who, while they do not deploy Hoshin kanri throughout
the company, are part of the operative deployment:
Frederic PETRUS SITE DIRECTOR of 220 people at Guerbert (turnover of e732 m

in 2021)
• Frederic has a few years of experience in the deployment of
Hoshin kanri
Aurélien LEVALLET SITE DIRECTOR of 1200 people at Novonordisk group (turnover
of $52 bn in 2021)
• Aurélien has a few years of experience in the deployment of
Hoshin kanri
Lastly, I will share the experience of Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd), who
has been one of the world’s most well-known and recognized Japanese experts and
consultants for over thirty-five years and is the founder of the Kaizen Institute. He
gave me the honor of accepting an interview in 2021:
Masaaki IMAI FOUNDER of KAIZEN INSTITUTE, in 1985, recognized as one of the

fathers of continuous improvement (deployed under the name KAIZEN™)
References
C.J.F. Cândido, S.P. Santos, Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate? J. Manag. Organ.
21(2), 237–262 (2015)
L. De Meo, Comment Lucas de Meo veut remettre Renault sur la route du succès? in
Capital (2021), https://www.capital.fr/auto/comment-luca-de-meo-veut-remettre-renault-sur-la-
route-du-succes-1405748
C. Ghosn, Five percent of the challenge is the strategy. Ninety-five percent is the execution in
Stanford Business (2014), https://www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/carlos-ghosn-five-percent-cha
llenge-strategy-ninety-five-percent-execution
C. Tavares, AG de Stellantis, in Investir (2018), https://investir.lesechos.fr/assemblees-genera
les-actionnaires/comptes-rendus-assemblees-generales/j-ai-dit-en-debut-d-annee-que-j-etais-
tres-confiant-sur-le-redressement-d-opel-vauxhall-je-le-suis-encore-plus-aujourd-hui-declare-
carlos-tavares-a-l-ag-1759357.php
C. Vinardi, Ph.D. Thesis on Industrial Engineering, Les défis du Lean à l’ère de la mondialisa-
tion et de l’industrie 4.0 (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Français, 2019), NNT :
2019COMP2500, tel-03201462
Chapter 2
Definition and Terminology
Abstract The translation of the Japanese word Hoshin kanri is complex, but it helps
to start understanding where it comes from. This chapter addresses the definition,
meaning, and other associated terms in the academic and professional fields.
For those who do not speak Japanese, the term “Hoshin kanri” does not immediately
reveal what it is all about. A breakdown of the Japanese words gives (Vinardi 2013):
● “ho” is a form or method, and “shin” is a compass needle: so “Hoshin” would
convey the idea of following the compass bearing, pointing a direction, and
● “Kanri” refers to “control, behavior, change, or management”.
Keeping those notions in mind, here is a simple version of the definition:
“Hoshin kanri is a way of collecting and deploying strategic objectives via

concrete and relevant actions on all levels and teams within a company.”
(Vinardi 2013)
Hoshin kanri is the art of defining the WHAT, and transforming the WHAT into
HOW. Some companies, particularly Anglo-Saxon ones, have various terms of which
here are examples: “Policy Deployment” or “Strategy Deployment”, “Management

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_2
6 2 Definition and Terminology
By Policy”, “Managing for results”, “Hoshin Planning”, “target-means deployment”,

or even “Managing into action” (Akao 1991), (Whitcher 2000), (Whitcher 2003).
The word “policy” is closely linked to what is “political” in some languages
like French. Needless to say that the word “political” has negative connotations
in business. For international companies, the term “Strategy Deployment” is more
useful. However, it refers only to deployment and does not implicitly include any
definition or construction of the strategy, which is an essential part of the approach.
The translation of the term is therefore not that easy, and since the Japanese were
the first to formalize and study this approach, many companies use the original term
Hoshin kanri which we will use in this book (Hutchins 2010).
References
Y. Akao, Hoshin kanri: policy deployment for successful TQM (Productivity Press, 1991)
D. Hutchins, Hoshin kanri: the strategic approach to continuous improvement. AI & Soc 25, 371–372
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0203-8
C. Vinardi, Le lean: atouts, impacts et limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)
B.J. Whitcher, Hoshin kanri at Hewlett-Packard. J. Gen. Manage. 25(4), 70–85 (2000)
B.J. Whitcher, Policy management of strategy (Hoshin kanri). Strateg. Change 12, 83–94 (2003)
Chapter 3
A Little Bit of History
Abstract Hoshin kanri is not a new method. This chapter looks at its origins and the
principal moments traced from Japan’s official introduction in the 1960s to today. It
helps to understand how Hoshin kanri was defined.
The 1950s The “Japan Association of Service and Technology” studied the
principles of effective strategic deployment and offered a training
course lasting several days on the subject with Dr. Deming (Akao 1991)
In 1954 The book by Peter Drucker called “The Practice of Management” was
published and then quickly translated into Japanese. The book featured
the principle of “Management By Objectives” (MBO). The method
was based on the top-down focus and deployment of objectives. It was
widely used in the USA and found interest in Japan in 1958
The Japanese were inspired by the principles of MBO but added the
process and the definition of action plans, which they considered
necessary to reach objectives (Vinardi 2019)
Beginning of the 1960s All the strategic aspects companies needed to win the Deming prize
were enhanced and brought together to be officially called the Hoshin
kanri approach (Alic and Ideskog 2016). Hoshin kanri started to be
seriously deployed at Bridgestone in Japan. The company wanted to
understand the techniques and operating processes used by companies
that won the Deming prize (Vinardi 2013). So Bridgestone
implemented Hoshin kanri, which facilitated the “Total quality”
deployment in particular (Al-Najem et al. 2012)
In 1965 It should be noted that for post-war Japan, the real breakthrough to be
achieved was in terms of perceived and delivered quality (Japan was
not renowned for its level of industry and service quality before the
war). The objectives, such as the actions that significantly improved
quality at the right cost, were grouped and called “Total quality” (itself
resulting from implementing quality circles). This explains why Hoshin
kanri and quality approaches have been closely linked (Akao 1991)
The 1970s Hoshin kanri was deployed more widely in Japan, particularly at
Toyota, which integrated it into the Toyota Production System,
together with the group’s adoption of a matrix organization. Slowly, it
was extended outside Japan
(continued)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_3
8 3 A Little Bit of History
(continued)
From 1980 to 1990 At the end of the 80 s, this extension reached some large American
companies in particular (Procter & Gamble, Hewlett Packard, and
Xerox). The first publications on the subject appeared in Japan, with
Yoji Akao’s book published in 1987 in Japanese. Its translation into
English in 1991 helped in its deployment and is still regarded as a
reference today (Akao 1991), (Alic and Ideskog 2016), (Lee and Dale
1998)
Since 1990 Some books have since relayed Hoshin kanri, yet in a minor way.
Scientific papers were also written, a few tens of which were cataloged
in English, Spanish, and French. Some articles relate the experiences
of Xerox and Hewlett Packard on the subject (Whitcher and
Butterworth 1999), (Whitcher 2000), (Whitcher 2003)
However, whereas the MBO is still taught mainly under the impetus of
universities and American management schools, Hoshin kanri is taught
too little in management schools, and any lasting deployment is still
not widely recorded (Vinardi 2019)
References
Y. Akao, Hoshin kanri: policy deployment for successful TQM (Productivity Press, 1991)
A. Alic, J. Ideskog, Hoshin kanri – the Japanese way of piloting: an exploratory study of a Japanese
strategic management system (2016)
M. Al-Najem, N. Dhakal, N. Bennett, The role of culture and leadership in lean transformation: a
review and assessment model. Int. J. Lean Thinking 3(1) (2012)
R.G. Lee, B.G. Dale, Policy deployment: an examination of the theory. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage.
15(5), 520–540 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1108/02656719810203659
C. Vinardi, Le Lean: atouts, impacts et limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)
C. Vinardi, Ph.D. Thesis on Industrial Engineering, Les défis du Lean à l’ère de la mondiali-
sationet de l’industrie 4.0 (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Français, 2019), NNT:
2019COMP2500, tel-03201462
B.J. Whitcher, R. Butterworth, Hoshin kanri: how Xerox manages. Long Range Plan. 32(3), 323–332
(1999)
B.J. Whitcher, Hoshin kanri at Hewlett-Packard. J. Gen. Manage. 25(4), 70–85 (2000)
Chapter 4
Current State of Strategy Deployment
Approaches
Abstract In this chapter, first, the upstream and downstream parts of the strategy
design are addressed. It requires properly assessing the initial state on the shopfloor
followed by the desired state to understand the gap to be filled. Then, the other key
strategic methods are looked at before detailing the Management By Objectives and
the Balanced Scorecard. The chapter ends with a focus on the specific contributions
of Hoshin kanri.
4.1 Necessary Inputs and the Analytical Approach
For a long time, the notion of strategy was part of the vocabulary of the ways of war.
However, its definition in the [Larousse] dictionary also applies to business practices:
“It refers to the art of coordinating actions, to maneuver skillfully to achieve a goal”.
When we talk about strategy, it is about actions to achieve an ambitious objec-
tive. Strategists, i.e., those who define strategy, are company top executives most of
the time.
Before defining actions, we must determine the objective and understand where
we come from (called initial or current state). Actions will make it possible to bridge
the gap. The initial state is assessed internally within the company (performance,
problems, achievements, amongst others) and also externally (in comparison with
competition, the performance, expectations of the market(s), for example). The aim
will therefore also be assessed using internal and external references.
To assess what is going on internally, top executives need to obtain feedback
from the shopfloor, i.e., from where value is created. It is those frontline leaders who
are responsible for sending up information. Without this reporting, top executives
will know only too little about the problems on the lowest level and consequently are
likely to make inappropriate decisions. Not only is it necessary to organize feedback,
but it is also necessary for top executives and leaders to do the fieldwork themselves
to understand and assess reality. Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) highlights this
in the following statement.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_4
10 4 Current State of Strategy Deployment Approaches
“When top management is not checking the real facts in every corner of
shopfloor, they will not know and understand what is happening in the company.
Unfortunately, many senior executives do not see the need and the value
of shopfloor management or understand their crucial role in seeing and
understanding the reality of the organization..”
From an interview of Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) with Carine Vinardi.
The major challenge for senior executives is ensuring they correctly understand
the current state, which implies they have implemented what is needed to obtain
this understanding. We will see that this is one of the critical challenges when
implementing Hoshin kanri.
The effectiveness of the company depends on the capacity of top executives down
to frontline leaders to connect and communicate quickly and effectively.
If companies are represented as pyramids, the senior executives would naturally
be at the vertex and frontline leaders at the base, as presented in Fig. 4.1.
To establish what happens externally, the top executives must understand the
company market(s), its customers, and how the company meets expectations, partic-
ularly in comparison with the competition. Analysis matrices can be used, some of
which were designed by large consulting firms (cf., the Mac Kinsey matrix, and the
BCG matrix, to name a few).
There is a simple matrix to determine strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and
threats of a problem or a strategy choice, called the SWOT matrix, whose acronym
comes from those four words. It is presented in the form of a square in Fig. 4.2.
ORGANIZATION = COMPANY
TOP LEADERS TOP LEADERS
FRONT LINE
LEADERS
? FRONT LINE
LEADERS
Fig. 4.1 Company as a pyramid and communication between the base (Frontline leaders) and the
vertex (Top leaders)
4.2 A Few Key Strategic Methods 11
Fig. 4.2 SWOT matrix Positive Negative

example
Internal
Strengths Weaknesses
Factors
External
Opportunities Threats
Factors
These analytical tools are independent of the Hoshin kanri approach but are essen-
tial inputs if a strategy is to be significant. Before taking on the subject of Hoshin
kanri, we need to understand the other strategic approaches I will address in the next
chapter.
4.2 A Few Key Strategic Methods
We will address two major strategic approaches. First, let us look at some senior
executives, particularly those who have implemented Hoshin kanri and tested other
methods.
How did you design and deploy your strategy before looking at Hoshin kanri?
“Before, we were used to give the big picture with budget frame, relying on
individuals. In a bigger company with increasing complexity this does not work
anymore.”
From an interview of Daniel HAGER with Carine Vinardi
“Before, we did it with MBO’s … the top 10 imperatives and resultant objec-
tives.”
From an interview of Pete McCABE with Carine Vinardi
“Before, objectives were used to come from the top first. After analysis, front-
line people expressed what they could do to the top. In the end, Top Leaders
defined the objectives to achieve, something between their initial wishes and
the frontline leaders’ proposition. It was very often not achieved.”
From an interview of Roland VARDANEGA with Carine Vinardi
“Before, I designed the strategy alone with a top-down approach without

asking for bottom-up inputs. When my company started to grow, I could not
continue like that.”
From an interview of Benoit MARTIN with Carine Vinardi
“Before, at the site level, we were used to apply Balanced Score Card (BSC),
which was more or less adapted to us.”
From an interview of Aurélien LEVALLET with Carine Vinardi
These examples show that companies of different sizes, activities, and cultures
found the Hoshin kanri useful, as they all needed a strategic approach.
Note that it includes a start-up (Popcarte), which is different from “traditional”
small companies, not only because it is in the field of new technologies but also
because it does not aim to be the best or the most profitable but to be the first of its
market (Serdar and Mehmet 2007).
Seeing a start-up CEO use this approach also shows its flexibility which we will
return to.
4.2.1 Focus on Management by Objectives
As we mentioned in the look back on history, Peter Drucker’s second book, “Practice
of Management”, published in 1954, strongly inspired the Japanese toward Hoshin
kanri (Vinardi 2019). Let us take another look at the main components of MBO,
which is still extensively used in many companies.
Peter Drucker, Austrian, lived in Europe before emigrating to the USA at 28 and
later became American in 1943. In 1946, Peter Druker published his first book called
“Concept of the Corporation”, which became an immediate success. It speaks about
the decentralization of decision-making.
This idea is also taken up in his 1954 book “Practice of Management”. He
goes against the views of Taylor, instead describing how to motivate employees
by entrusting them with objectives to be reached rather than by assigning them tasks
to be carried out forcefully.
He also describes how objectives must be determined so that every leader’s
objective must contribute to the company’s strategic objectives (Fig. 4.3).
4.2 A Few Key Strategic Methods 13
Fig. 4.3 Cascading

(strategic) objectives within
Cascading
MBO (Strategic)
Objectives
Objective A
Leader | Level 1
▼
Objective B
Leader| Level 2
▼
…. …
Leader | Level n Objective C
At the start therefore, both MBO and Hoshin kanri have a co-constructive and
non-directive way of determining objectives. However, many companies
that practice MBO do not incorporate this principle, so MBO is essentially
a top-down1 approach.
The other main differences between Hoshin kanri and MBO are seen both in the
process, the role, and the leaders’ commitment. As we will see, as opposed to MBO,
Hoshin kanri defines:
● The process of cascading objectives by taking into account what makes sense,
including the most operational level, which executes the action plan,
● The process of definition and tracking of strategic action plans by making teams
suggest actions and by bringing the top executives to engage in tracking and
support in execution,
● Opportunities to organize feedback of experience to understand why teams
succeed or fail and reproduce success as presented in Fig. 6.11.
It is interesting to note that a hybrid approach called OKR, which stands for
Objective and Key Results, was made famous by Intel and Google. Yet, we do not
precisely know the source of inspiration of Andy Grove, the CEO of Intel, who took it
up in the 1970s. However, the approach is, in fact, inspired by MBO by focusing teams

on a few critical strategic objectives (two to five maximum) communicated clearly

within the organization. By putting the teams on the right track (with the objectives),
this approach encourages them to propose actions and means of following progress
in a bottom-up2 approach, which takes Hoshin kanri as a starting point to a certain
extent.
John Doerr, who had worked with Andy Grove, proposed the approach to Larry
Page, the CEO of Google, on becoming the company’s prominent investor. Google
popularized it at the beginning of the noughties and still uses it today. Other
companies like Amazon or Netflix also seem to have adopted it.
4.2.2 Focus on the Balanced Scorecard
This approach is often called by its acronym BSC. The first implementation cases go
back to 1987 at Analog Devices Incorp, a semiconductor company. The people at its
origin had spent time in Japan and had been in contact with the senior executives of
Hewlett Packard, who had deployed Hoshin kanri. This explains why the coordination
of Hoshin kanri may be similar to the Balanced Scorecard (Seyda and Mehmet 2007).
This approach was defined as a frame to translate the vision and the strategy
of a company into strategic objectives, concrete strategic measures, and actions
across four perspectives: “Financial”, “Customer”, “Internal Process”, and “Learning
and Growth” (Kaplan and Norton 1992):
In each of the four perspectives, the questions to be addressed are (Kaplan and
Norton 1996):
● FINANCIAL: To succeed financially, what do we need to present to shareholders?
● CUSTOMER: To reach our vision, how do we satisfy our customers?
● INTERNAL PROCESS: To satisfy our shareholders and customers, which
processes must we improve?
● LEARNING AND GROWTH: To reach our vision, what do we need to sustain
in our approach to improvement, and how must we continue our growth?
The answers will define the actions to be aligned, using the top-down3 approach
(Fig. 4.4).
The Balanced Scorecard is mainly for the top executives and does not describe
how to define and cascade the objectives into an action plan. One of the strengths
is to help to structure a conceptual framework (Serdar and Mehmet 2007).
David Norton and Robert S. Kaplan officially introduced and defined the Balanced
Scorecard in an article in the Harvard Business Review in 1992 (Kaplan and Norton
1992), (Kaplan and Norton 1993), (Kaplan and Norton 1996). Since then, it has
inspired many other scientific articles, which is less the case for Hoshin kanri, even
today (Da Silva et al. 2017).

4.3 Contributions of Hoshin Kanri 15
Fig. 4.4 Translation of vision and strategy using the four Balanced Scorecard perspectives (Source
Kaplan and Norton 1996)
4.3 Contributions of Hoshin Kanri
Before presenting any new interview contributions, let us compare Hoshin kanri to
MBO and BSC.
Hoshin kanri was inspired by MBO by adding and correcting some parts that
the Japanese had identified as lacking according to their model:
● focusing on a few key objectives and actions,
● alignment and coordination of actions and objectives at all levels,
● team participation with starting and including frontline teams,
● regular reviews and problem-solving which arise in implementation.
Although the creators and initial experts of BSC found inspiration in how Hewlett
Packard deployed Hoshin kanri, the BSC approach was focused on defining the
strategic objectives and the four perspectives of the vision. This, combined with the
fact that both Hoshin kanri and MBO do not specify how strategic objectives must
be defined.
Consequently, BSC does not include the parts added to MBO by the Japanese.
It can be used to define strategic objectives based on the vision, which some
companies do, just as other companies complement BSC with MBO (Whitcher 2003).
Therefore, BSC is to be classified more as an analysis approach than a complete

strategic deployment approach.
Lastly, Hoshin kanri contributes to the consideration of each person’s work via the
implementation of strategy and, particularly, a better balance between the objec-
tive dimension of work (mainly considered in MBO and BSC) and the subjective
and collective dimension. Real work is indeed based on three main dimensions:
objective, subjective, and collective (Gomez 2019):
● Objective: results from my work on performance means I can say “I performed
my work well” objectively.
● Subjective: the sense of my work, means it is possible to connect the worker to
the result with pride and say: “I did this work, and it is useful”.
● Collective: the solidarity between several people to produce the result across the
whole organization: “We did this work together”.
Hoshin kanri is about connecting concrete actions carried out by teams and a
result to be reached at each level. This is divided by senior executives and executives
we interviewed.
What are the main contributions of Hoshin kanri compared with other
approaches? What does it bring?
“With the remark that “we are not yet fully Hoshin kanri”, there is a better
alignment. People understand what impact their actions have on other
functions and vice-versa and how they contribute to the success. It also allows
more realistic target setting–even if humans still continue to have a tendency
towards optimistic targets.”
“Hoshin kanri definitely helps prioritize long-term goals and reconcile

them with short-term goals and objectives. It forces a process orientation in
strategy implementation, rather than just MBO. The alignment at each level of
the organization is powerful, thus Hoshin kanri is a tremendous management
and communication aid”.
Rigorous, disciplined execution comes also easily, nowhere to hide!
Year-end self-assessment always a terrific team discussion–lots of learning.
Hoshin kanri makes stretch real and operational.”
From an interview of Larry CULP with Carine Vinardi
References 17
“Hoshin kanri talks to the how, versus the what and it facilitates breakthrough
thinking. The what is easy, the how, is where value is created. It brings extreme
rigor to common sense stuff.”
“Hoshin kanri brings:

1. A way to federate and bond the teams from vision to actions they can propose.
2. Alignment between the company objectives, the department’s objectives,
and the individual’s objectives with the right strategy at each level.
3. Very strong contribution and implication of the teams at each level.
4. Better efficiency in achieving day-to-day goals as they are understood and
set by the teams themselves.”
Particular messages come up regularly, such as alignment of teams (widely

stated), comprehension and clear contribution of each person and each team, a
strong level of team commitment together with a rigorous implementation.
References
W.G. da Silveira, S.E.G. de Costa, E.P. de Lima, F. Deschamps, Guidelines for Hoshin Kanri
implementation: development and discussion. Prod. Planning Control Manage. Oper. 28(10)
(2017). 10 https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2017.1325020
P.Y. Gomez, Le travail invisible: enquête sur une disparition. réédition (Desclée de Brouwer
Editions, 2019)
R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton, The balanced scorecard–measures that drive performance (Harvard
Business Review, 1992), pp. 71–9
R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton, Putting the balanced scorecard to work (Harvard Business Review, 1993),
pp. 134–42
R.S. Kaplan, D.P. Norton, Using the balanced scorecard as a strategic management system (Harvard
Business Review, 1996), pp. 75–85
A.S. Şeyda, T. Mehmet Integrating Hoshin kanri and the balanced scorecard for strategic manage-
ment: the case of higher education. Total Qual. Manag. Bus. Excellence, 18(9), 999–1014 (2007).
https://doi.org/10.1080/14783360701592604
C. Vinardi, PhD. Thesis on Industrial Engineering, Les défis du Lean à l’ère de la mondialisation et de
l’industrie 4.0 (Université de Compiègne, Français, 2019) NNT: 2019COMP2500, tel-03201462
Chapter 5
Principles and Key Steps
Abstract Starting with a general presentation, the chapter sets out the importance of
defining the mission and vision and how they are used to connect with the feedback
of experience. The next step is nemawashi, where teams share their propositions,
followed by their alignment before designing and defining the strategic action plan
(also called masterplan). The last and most crucial step is executing and correcting
the masterplan. The chapter finishes by describing how scheduling is to be correctly
implemented for each step.
5.1 General Presentation
The principle of the approach rests on focusing on a few vital priorities for company
development and then aligning and coordinating all the local action plans related
to those priorities. It is, therefore, a management initiative to match the company
objectives with the necessary means to have at each level. Therefore, having a
direction serves to achieve that aim.
What are the main elements needed to define the direction to be used for
steering?
There are two main items (Vinardi 2019):

● The mission of the company: its purpose, i.e., what characterized the company.
The mission sets the choices to be carried out. The mission changes only if the
company changes its business or scope of activity, which is relatively rare.
● The vision of the company: what it wants to be in the future, this is, in the distant
but defined long term. This relates to the market and the products and services the
company for the future. The vision must be simple and inspiring.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_5
20 5 Principles and Key Steps
These two definitions will set the direction and are detailed together with examples
in Sect. 7.3. According to the business cycle, the company’s mission can define the
long-term vision for the following three, five, ten, or twenty years. There are
examples of cycles of about twenty years in the nuclear power and defense sectors.
Cycles of five to ten years are found in aeronautics, and cycles of three years in the car
industry. This vision is then converted to performance objectives. These objectives are
called “strategic” as they are linked to business strategy or “breakthrough” because
they often require a break from the current way of doing things. They are, therefore,
a true challenge for the organization (Vinardi 2019).
The vision and strategic objectives are chosen from the standpoint of the
company’s initial or current state. Indeed, ambition is needed to define future
performance and, subsequently, to determine the corresponding action plan.
This highlights the gap that must be bridged, which must be clear for all.
Therefore, understanding the current state is critical.
The strategic or breakthrough objectives have their own time scales that are
detailed with examples in Sect. 7.3:
● long term (related to the vision),
● short term (or annual): in line with the yearly breakdown of long-term perfor-
mance.
Once the strategic objectives are set, the corresponding action(s) need to be
defined, which is why they are called strategic actions. To attain performance
that has never been reached, it is often necessary to engage in actions that have never
been set. These are called breakthrough actions. However, large-scale continuous
improvements can also generate results that have never been reached. Therefore, we
will note that strategic actions are mainly (but not exclusively) breakthrough actions.
5.2 Key Steps
5.2.1 Defining the Missions and Vision
In the previous chapter, I introduced Hoshin kanri’s key parts: these are the mission
and the vision, which in turn define the long-term strategic objectives.
We also described how the current state (initial state) needs to be carefully consid-
ered, which is why, when the mission and the vision are defined for the first time,
this step must be done before defining the strategic objectives and actions and
followed by the feedback of experience described later.
5.2 Key Steps 21
The mission should not often change once it is formalized. When it does, it is only
because of a significant event or its purpose is challenged. That may be for example,
in the case of a company acquisition or strong market turbulence.
The vision, for its part, is updated at the end of the set cycle, whose length ranges
from three to many tens of years. Here again, it would not change unless a significant
event occurred. It is reviewed and challenged yearly according to the company’s
ability to achieve its long-term strategic objectives.
Mission is the timeless purpose. The mission sets the course based on what makes
sense for all employees, preferably as a single sentence.
Below are a few examples to make the difference:
AMAZON “We strive to offer our customers the lowest possible prices, the
best available selection, and the utmost convenience”.
GOOGLE “To organize the world’s information and make it universally
accessible and useful”.
SANOFI “Providing support for a healthier life to populations the world
over”. From the French: “Accompagner les populations du monde
entier à vivre en meilleure santé”.
● Vision is what the company wants to become. The vision often starts with “to
be” or “to become”. Just like the mission, the vision must be clear, inspiring,
and simple enough to remember.
AMAZON “To be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers

can find and discover anything they might want to buy online”.
GOOGLE “To be the only company who can provide access to the world’s
information in one click”.
JF. KENNEDY “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal,
before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and
returning him safely to Earth”.
The mission and the vision, together with the corresponding strategic objectives,
are set for the long term and usually span several years (Fig. 5.1).
As we have mentioned in the definition above, Hoshin kanri focuses on having a

few fundamental strategic objectives. It is recommended to have five long-term
strategic objectives (preferably just two or three).
Yet the definition of the mission, the vision, and the corresponding strategic
objectives are not exclusive to Hoshin kanri. Many companies define these anyway.
But Hoshin kanri has much more: the cascade and implementation of actions, the
corresponding alignment, and the means to track execution and learning.
MISSION
MULTI-ANNUAL
FREQUENCY
VISION MISSION
VISION
LONG-TERM
STRATEGIC
LONG TERM STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE 1
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE 2
Fig. 5.1 From mission to long-term strategic objectives (Source Vinardi 2013)
Isn’t communicating the vision enough to give direction to the teams? If not,
why not?
Communication is not enough to ensure that teams all stay focused on the
strategic objectives because it does not guarantee that everyone understands them
and contributes to them fully in the same way. The advantage of Hoshin kanri is
that everyone is aligned, so everyone puts the vision into action (Fig. 5.2).
For this step to be achieved, top executives must be willful, particularly the Chief
Executive Officer. Commonly when it fails, it is because some top executives take
refuge in short-term objectives: they are left with just a “short-term strategy” without
a mission or a vision. However, it is precisely by defining a mission and a vision
that a direction and framework can be given, making it possible to focus usefully
on meaningful annual strategic objectives. If governance and shareholders of the
NO SHARED SHARED VISION

VISION VISION WITH HOSHIN KANRI
Fig. 5.2 Aligning all the teams on the vision with Hoshin kanri (Source Vinardi 2013)
5.2 Key Steps 23
company play their role, then top executives will adequately commit to this step. The
converse is also true.
“It is difficult for CEOs and Top leaders to spend time on shopfloor in most
companies. It consistently and persistently happens because of a short-term
strategic focus by CEOs and the board of directors to delight mainly the
shareholders.
Often, it is not a priority to fix the internal operational systems because it
takes time and a solid commitment to frontline people and the Voice of the
Customer. For many leaders, this does not suit their short-term self-interest
or the immediate interests of the shareholders they usually represent.”
From an interview of Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) with Carine Vinardi
5.2.2 Sharing the Feedback of Experience
Feedback of experience is about understanding the gap between the current state and
the vision by assessing the past and seeing how it explains the current situation at all
the various levels. Bearing this in mind, here are fundamental questions to answer:
● What is the performance resulting from the chosen strategic indicators? What has
our capability been up to now?
– Understanding past and current performance.
● What works well, and what doesn’t? What processes contribute to past and present
performances? What are the past successes and failures, and what can be learned
for the future?
– Understanding how past and present performances were attained.
Suppose the feedback of experience (FoE) is not formally part of company or

organization processes. In that case, it is still possible to carry out elementary
FoE using what we know by talking to the teams starting from the shopfloor
first and asking them the questions above.
The feedback of experience is produced by looking at the most significant

points and then understanding and learning from them. When each strategic action is
finished, feedback of experience must be carried out. At least once a year, a formal
and consolidated review is done. This assessment starts with operational teams at
shopfloor. It is therefore, a bottom-up1 review.
Just as in everyday life, focusing only on what is essential when learning lessons
from the past is recommended. A report is done using a very simple format on a single
page, called A3 one-page report.2 The feedback of experience process improves over
the years.
At the annual review (i.e., at the consolidation), the feedback of experience

serves to make propositions of objectives and their corresponding actions for
the following year based on past experience.
It is a critical exercise companywide, involving leaders and their teams,
and must be carried out from the shopfloor up (that is, from “those who
do”). Why?
● Firstly, because teams know their constraints and workloads, similarly
operational teams must make the first propositions to senior executives
before they set and finalize the objectives and strategic actions for the year.
● Secondly, the teams know the gap between the current situation and the
uncertain future.
● Lastly, it ensures that teams start to engage because they suggest the
objectives and the actions for the following year (This will be seen in
Sect. 5.2.3).
If the importance of this step is truly acknowledged, the teams will allocate
time to its implementation and increase their involvement. It should be noted that
learning from the feedback of experience can also be done on small daily actions,
just as on more extensive strategic actions.
5.2.3 Nemawashi: Trust and Organization to Share

Propositions
At the very start of Hoshin kanri, we can appreciate the importance of feedback of
experience. This is done from the shopfloor and, more precisely, from teams on the
lowest level of the organization (frontlines) to support the propositions for the
following year’s strategic objectives. These discussions move up to the top exec-
utives, team after team, who each validate, question, or challenge the propositions
until the objectives and corresponding actions are validated.
Called “nemawashi” in Japanese, this “consensus discussion” takes place at
all levels to share feedback of experience, and it results in validated propositions.

5.2 Key Steps 25
This Japanese concept translates literally as “working around the roots or preparing
the soil for planting”.
It refers to the preparation when replanting a tree, in which due attention is taken to
protect and unearth the roots, to prepare the place where the tree will be replanted, and
to take care when planting, ensuring a successful operation and future tree growth.
The metaphor describes how consensus within organizations results from sharing
information, assessing ideas suggested by the teams, and choosing the appropriate
actions to ensure a favorable execution.
Held annually and involving the teams, they must jointly define their objectives
and corresponding actions. Leaders and top executives question the propositions
until they all agree on a very ambitious but realistic annual challenge.
Note that Anglo-Saxon companies refer to this process as “catch-ball”. Although
this illustration is simple and visual, the intrinsic effort of this stage is a little lost by
the simplified representation (Fig. 5.3).
In Sect. 11.1, we will see that nemawashi must also consider the national cultures
of the teams, amongst other things. But whatever the culture, discussions are
needed to motivate the teams.
There must be a trusting relationship at all company levels so that the dialogue
is constructive, leading and feeding up to executing strategy. A summary (the A3
one-page report 3 ) is used to share the main points quickly, as we will see in Chap. 9.
Fig. 5.3 Illustration of

“Catch ball” or Nemawashi
ORGANIZATION = COMPANY

5.2.4 Defining and Designing the Action Plans
With the feedback of experience undertaken annually, long-term strategic objectives

can be updated if necessary. Top executives suggest the first set of strategic objectives
for the year to come in a top-down4 manner.
Propositions from shopfloor are taken into account by top executives and are
confirmed or corrected at the executive level. As we have stated in the previous
chapters, when teams share their feedback of experience, they also share suggested
objectives together with the corresponding strategic actions for the following year,
thus following a bottom-up5 process.
Actions are listed in the action plan, including the planning, milestones, and
resources. This strategic (action) plan is commonly called a “masterplan”.
Some organizations also call it an “objectives contract” because it is a formal
document describing the strategic objectives and how to reach them.
In any case, it is the primary tool to ensure that Hoshin kanri is dynamic and
serves to maintain its execution. It is deployed in all teams and at all levels according
to skills and teams, and it is crucial to building this action plan, yet it will be useless
without rigorous execution (Vinardi 2019).
Strategy is played out daily to maintain the alignment of the company’s
activities based on the designed action plan, not in its initial grand design (Colins
2021).
The first masterplan made by the top executive, which may not necessarily be
very detailed, is used to structure the initial conversations and set the right level
of detail. It takes the form of a report.
When the masterplan used at shopfloor execution is formalized, it may be
presented as a report to the top executive.
Note that this construction process of the masterplan is implicitly interactive
because it is how employees and leaders drive propositions globally, i.e., holistically
involving the whole company to motivate everyone on a single joint project.
The masterplan should not be confused with the direction (i.e., the vision).
The direction points to a bearing, but it does not choose a path. Some leaders believe
that because the direction is clear, then the path is therefore defined.
That means that to go from point A to point B, it would be enough to identify
point B and assume there is a straight line to get there. In real life, unfortunately, it
does not necessarily work that way.
In addition, if we accept that straight lines are not the only paths, then it is also
true that there may be several paths to reach the same target.
The fundamental aim, of course, is double: finding the shortest path that also
ensures sustainable results. This is why it may be helpful to be assisted by an
external resource to identify the alternative paths, for example, when a team lacks
experience on particular problems when problems have considerable challenges, or
when a team has failed on similar issues in the past.

5.2 Key Steps 27
If several paths are possible, that also means that paths can be adjusted, not
for just any problem, of course, but when a substantial change in context requires
so. That happens in everyday life; we go forward and amend our bearing if need be.
It is the same when making changes to the masterplan. The changes must be done
easily and clearly with all the people involved. This supposes that those involved
talk regularly to understand what and how must now be changed and that a simple
format of masterplan eases the change.
Lastly, it is a good idea to record what was changed to learn, repeat success,
and avoid repeating mistakes. In this respect, the initial plan has to be documented
since it is used to understand what was changed and why. A short report must be
made to record the changes and comments.
● There is a variety of possible masterplans. Make the first one as efficient

as possible.
● Masterplans must be adaptable, just as any action plan. It is not advisable
to change everything all the time, yet some actions may need correcting if
they are not effective.
● So that they are adjusted quickly, masterplans must regularly be coordinated
with the right participants.
● So that they are adaptable, the report format of the masterplan must be
simple. It must allow for gaps to be recorded and to learn from the feedback
of experience.
We will look at the format and routines of coordination in detail in Sect. 10.2.
Most companies put together their annual masterplan to reach their annual
strategic objectives. If actions require more than one year to be implemented, they
are carried over to the following year.
Some companies, particularly those with a long business cycle (greater than five
years), initially have a multiyear masterplan with long-term strategic objectives
because some actions require more than a year. A second single-year plan is then
made from it, consistent with the strategic objectives.
The operation of the various parts is illustrated by the graph below (Fig. 5.4).
Just as for the strategic objectives, it is vital to focus on having five strategic
actions maximum (Colins 2021; Vinardi 2019).
Indeed, because they are necessarily multidisciplinary, they will take up
significant time and energy.
PERFORMANCE
MISSION
LONG-TERM
STRATEGIC VISION
OBJECTIVE
ANNUAL
STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVE
CURRENT
PERFORMANCE
TIME
1 YEAR LONG TERM : 3,5, 10, 20 YEARS?
Fig. 5.4 Key parts in implementing Hoshin kanri (Source Vinardi 2013)
Top executives must ensure that masterplans are targeted at the right level, i.e.,
involving the teams where those actions are implemented. We will see how this
is done.
After defining the strategic objectives and actions, a period of exchanges between
all the leaders at each hierarchical level must occur to ensure those concerned leaders
can react and make counter propositions.
As we will see, the discussion stage is crucial to motivating the teams. If it
does not occur, the objectives and the strategic actions are perceived as orders that
will cause commitment problems during the execution.
Ideally, a discussion must occur before the end of the financial year so that
propositions for objectives and actions align with the budget’s validation.
Several weeks are needed between the feedback of experience, including the
discussion, and the formalization of the masterplans. The planning is detailed in
Sect. 5.3.
5.2.5 Executing and Correcting
Defining and formalizing a masterplan is not sufficient for it to be implemented.

Many companies often make this mistake and do not allocate enough time and
attention to its execution.
Top executives must be role models and instate a monthly deployment coordina-
tion cycle. This must take place in each of the teams involved.
The implementation of strategic actions is far from a smooth process. Often,
unforeseen problems must be solved, sometimes including corrective measures.
This is something to be well prepared for when defining the action plan, as seen in
Sect. 5.2.3.
5.2 Key Steps 29
Regarding plan adjustments, these are inherently strategic because they impact
all the company’s functions and require systemic change. However, too many CEOs
neglect them (Colins 2021).
Execution requires discipline and rigor by carefully applying the appropriate
analysis methods for problem-solving and its coordination. We will look at the
details of coordination in Sect. 10.2. Still, here, we will note that strong multidisci-
plinary teamwork is essential to finding solutions to problems, particularly to new
ones.
Problem-solving must be done at the right level, be sustainable and escalate
problems to the next level when those cannot be done otherwise.
Similarly, it is essential to understand conditions for success and to escalate them.
To summarize, this figure shows the various stages to be done every year after the
mission and vision are defined (Fig. 5.5).
As shown in the following figure, this annual cycle can be linked to the multiyear
cycle showing the mission and vision (Fig. 5.6).
The cycles for the deployment and learning of Hoshin kanri are therefore not
measured in weeks and months but in years simply because of the yearly strategic
cycle.
ANNUAL
FEEDBACK OF
EXPERIENCE
ANNUAL
STRATEGIC
ACTIONS
STRATEGIC DESIGN
ANNUAL
OBJECTIVES STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
DESIGN EXECUTION
STRATEGIC
ANNUAL FEEDBACK OF
ACTIONS EXPERIENCE
FORMALIZATION & SHARING
STRATEGIC
ANNUAL ACTIONS
Fig. 5.5 Annual key steps of Hoshin kanri (Source Vinardi 2019)
MULTI-ANNUAL
MISSION
ANNUAL
STRATEGIC
VISION ACTIONS
DESIGN
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
OBJECTIVES DESIGN EXECUTION
FEEDBACK OF
EXPERIENCE
FORMALIZATION & SHARING
Fig. 5.6 Annual and multi-annual key steps of Hoshin kanri (Source Vinardi 2019)
What do top executives say about the assimilation time they needed to feel
comfortable with Hoshin kanri?
“After several years, I am still learning...”

“I would say that in 12 months doing twice the exercise I was totally
comfortable.”
“It probably took four years to get comfortable. A lot of fits and starts and
then a new leader who believed in it got me over the stop.”
“The methodology itself is not very complicated. It requires some time to apply
it the right way and, in that matter, having the support of a consultant allows
you to save time.”
“Concerning the implementation on the full site, I think three years are
necessary to feel totally comfortable.”
From an interview of Aurélien LEVALLET with Carine Vinardi
5.3 Planning 31
Therefore at least two cycles or two full years are needed to feel completely
comfortable. As certain senior and top executives above have said, the approach is
not complicated if its various parts are considered separately. Still, it can prove to be
quite tricky when taken as a solid whole.
Once again, it requires rigor and determination to execute and implement it
companywide to unleash all its full potential (Hutchins 2010). However, leaders
improve with each annual deployment cycle (Jusko 2007).
5.3 Planning
Ideally, the implementation timetable matches the budgetary one since breakthrough
strategic actions might require investment by their nature.
The first stage is experience sharing which must be consolidated and communi-
cated at all levels before involving the executive.
For large companies with a matrix structure,6 one month is needed to carry out
this stage, less for smaller ones.
One quarter is needed for large organizations to ensure the construction of
masterplans at the right level, based on the strategic objectives. This time is necessary
for dialogue at various levels, including support functions.
The planning of Hoshin kanri follows the learning cycle by E. Deming called
PDCA7 (Plan, Do, Check, Act). The cycle names the hard steps needed to implement
END OF QUARTER-2 QUARTER -1 QUARTER 1, 2, 3, 4 YEAR
ACT PLAN DO & CHECK

SHARING FEEDBACK OF DEFINING & FORMALIZING STRATEGIC EXECUTING & SOLVING
EXPERIENCE REPORTS ACTION PLAN Deploying masterplans & check
Year A results ⬆ Defining or updating mission & vision results ⬆ ⬇
Year A successes & Defining strategic objectives Correcting & solving problems in
failures ⬆ (breakthroughs) of year A+1 ⬆ ⬇ a sustainable way ⬆ ⬇
Defining strategic actions (breakthroughs)
of year A+1 ⬆ ⬇
Formalizing & aligning masterplans ⬆ ⬇
UNDERSTAND FRAME DELIVER & CORRECT

LEARN EMPOWER RESPECT
EVALUATE ENGAGE SUSTAIN
SEPTEMBER OCTOBER - DECEMBER JANUARY - DECEMBER
Fig. 5.7 Implementation timetable, based on a fiscal year from January to December

a method or a tool, a management routine, an action or to deploy the Lean8 approach

globally. In addition, the PDCA9 steps follow the phases of an experimental protocol
(Vinardi 2019). The arrows in the figure below show the direction of information
flow, exchanges, and documents: ↑ Bottom-up,10 i.e., the shopfloor teams upwards to
the top executives, ↓ Top-down,11 i.e., senior executives downward to the shopfloor
teams (Fig. 5.7).
It is important to note that in the last quarter of the year, the masterplan of the
previous year is finalized at the same time as preparing for the year to come.
Action planning for the year must be limited in time to the first two or three
quarters as much as possible.
Indeed, if results are expected in the current year, the corresponding actions
must be carried out during the third quarter at the latest. The last (fourth) quarter
of the year should be for tracking the effectiveness of the actions undertaken,
for corrections, etc., and, therefore, the corresponding feedback of experience.
References
D.J. Colins, Pourquoi tant de stratégies échouent-elle (Harvard Business Review, 2021), p. 36
D. Hutchins, Hoshin kanri: the strategic approach to continuous improvement. AI & Soc 25, 371–372
(2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0203-8
J. Jusko: Strategic deployment: how to think like Toyota. Ind. Week 256(11), 34–36.
In: Sustain Excellence Through Lean Improvement (The American University in Cairo,
Engineering and Science Services (ESS), Industrial Engineering Sector, 2007). Retrieved
from https://www.industryweek.com/leadership/strategic-planning-execution/article/21962381/
strategic-deployment-how-to-think-like-toyota
C. Vinardi, Le Lean: atouts, impacts et limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)
sation et de l’industrie 4.0 (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Français, 2019), NNT:
2019COMP2500, tel-03201462

Chapter 6
Key Connected Elements
Abstract Hoshin kanri has different parts which can be used separately from its
deployment, such as the PDCA (A more precise definition is found in the Glossary
(6)) cycle, problem-solving methods, and the KPI tree. In addition, a few management
or organization practices are also useful in Hoshin kanri, such as developing skills,
the reversed pyramid, the “Z approach” and operational & functional organization.
This chapter describes how these benefit Hoshin kanri.
6.1 PDCA Application
If we look at Fig. 5.6 again, the implementation cycle of the main stages of Hoshin
kanri can be put in perspective with PDCA1 (Fig. 6.1).
The Hoshin kanri approach is management-oriented; therefore, it takes shape
in its construction and execution. Documents and defined action plans are not
sufficient in themselves.
Once the masterplans are formalized, at least one monthly meeting is held to
(Fig. 6.2):
● review results,
● find solutions to problems encountered during the implementation of the actions,
at all levels and for all the teams involved.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_6
34 6 Key Connected Elements
MULTI-ANNUAL
MISSION
ANNUAL
P STRATEGIC P
VISION ACTIONS
DESIGN
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
C ACTIONS
OBJECTIVES P DESIGN EXECUTION
FEEDBACK OF
EXPERIENCE D
A FORMALIZATION & SHARING
Fig. 6.1 PDCA in the multiyear and single-year stages of Hoshin kanri (Source Vinardi 2019)
MULTI-ANNUAL
MISSION
ANNUAL MAX 5
STRATEGIC
VISION ACTIONS
DESIGN
MONTHLY
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC MEETING
STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
OBJECTIVES MAX 5 PROBLEM
DESIGN EXECUTION
SOLVING
FEEDBACK OF
ANNUAL EXPERIENCE
MEETING FORMALIZATION & SHARING
ANNUAL
MEETING
Fig. 6.2 Focus on the coordination of the multiyear and single-year key stages of Hoshin (Source
Vinardi 2019)
6.2 The “Z” Approach

6.2.1 Principle
One of the significant differences between Hoshin kanri and other approaches is its
focus on a small number of key actions, whose execution is followed with discipline
and rigor, as mentioned in the collected interviews.
Some would say that it is sufficient to connect each cascade of strategic objectives
to an action plan to implement MBO. Besides, that is done by many companies
who deploy MBO, requiring each leader to define action plans corresponding to the
cascade of objectives. It describes the letter “C”, as illustrated below in Fig. 6.3.
6.2 The “Z” Approach 35
Strategic Strategic
Objectives Actions
Leader | Level 1
Leader | Level 2
….
Objective A
▼
Objective B
▼
…
C ►Action A
►Action B
Leader | Level n Objective C ►Action C
Fig. 6.3 Cascade of corresponding objectives in MBO and the implementation of possible actions
If leaders on each level define and implement action plans, how is MBO
different from Hoshin kanri?
When MBO-based action plans are carried out, the problem is that there is no
alignment and consistency verification of the actions at the various levels. Actions
are undertaken independently of each other. There is no connection or verification
of consistency between actions A and B of two leaders (Fig. 6.3). Yet it is one of the
problems which is so often brought up by teams in companies: lack of consistency
of actions or initiatives with actions that do not have the same direction.
With Hoshin kanri, it is desirable, first and foremost, for top executives to be
aligned on the actions to be engaged to ensure consistency. It is up to the senior
executives to coordinate and align themselves at the right level and to define how
the strategic objectives (“what”) transform into strategic actions (“how”).
How is the transformation of “what” into “how” done “at the lower levels” of
the organization?
Conversely to MBO, in Hoshin kanri, the objectives are not cascaded but the
actions. The strategic actions of the higher level become the strategic objectives
of the lower level. Between the levels, there is Z-deployment, and here, actions
are genuinely connected. This “Z” makes a significant difference because it enables
every leader or team in the organization to propose and understand their concrete
contribution to a strategic objective. It also allows every top executive to understand
what action will produce the desired result (Fig. 6.4).
Strategic Strategic
Objectives Actions
Leader | Level 1
Leader | Level 2
….
Objective A
Objective B
= ACTION A
…
Z ►Action A
►Action B
Objective C ►Action C
Leader | Level n
= ACTION n-1
Fig. 6.4 Cascade of objectives in actions of Hoshin kanri and the Z-deployment
We will look at a few examples to illustrate this in the following chapter.
6.2.2 Examples
Example 1: The strategic objective is “to decrease by 40% the costs connected to
customer’s claim and management”.
In this example, the cascade on level 2 is done by the Operations Director, and the
Logistics Director cascades on level 3 because an “innovation” was identified in the
management of inventories. Note that departments other than Operations will need
to contribute to this objective. If an “innovation” is necessary, it is specified in the
masterplan of the corresponding team.
The strategic action identified on level 1 is to improve customer satisfaction from
50 to 80%, and this action should not “come out from nowhere”:
● analysis of the costs must be undertaken, the correlation between cost and
satisfaction and solutions to improve satisfaction must be established,
● alignment discussion between the executive team members must occur, meaning
that the senior executives must have prior information for analysis.
Level 1 leaders must not decide for level 2 leaders on the details of actions,
which would deprive the latter of proposition, engagement, and scope of
action (autonomy).
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Decrease by 40% the costs Improve customer

LEVEL 1 : connected to customer
Z
satisfaction from 50% to
claims and management. 80%
Improve customer Improve maximum lead time

LEVEL 2 : satisfaction from 50% to delivery from 5 to 2 weeks.
LEVEL 3 :
80%
Improve maximum lead time

delivery from 5 to 2 weeks.
Z Include 2 weeks of raw material
inventory for the components
with more than 2 weeks of lead
time to be delivered
Fig. 6.5 Example 1: A strategic objective cascaded to two levels below
On level 2, Operations identifies that the necessary strategic action relates to the
lead time, which will impact level 3 through better material inventory management.
On level 3, the action becomes more tangible, as it is here that the masterplan is
carried out for this particular action. In this example, we say that the strategic action
is delegated or cascaded to level 3, which implements the masterplan. Because it
is at the right level and with the right team: it is said to be an “impact point” Fig. 6.5.
Example 2: The strategic objective is “to become the leader of market Y, with 40%
of market share within three years”.
With that aim, the executive team validates—as always, after analysis—that the
significant strategic action is to acquire technology Y by buying company Z.
This action naturally means an executive team member undertakes it. There-
fore, it will not be cascaded or delegated. The execution of the masterplan will
consequently be formalized and tracked directly at the level of the executive team
(Fig. 6.6).
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Become the leader

Acquire technology YY by
LEVEL 1: of market Y with
acquiring company Z
40% of market
share within 3 years
Fig. 6.6 Example 2: A strategic objective that is not cascaded at all

Example 3: In this example, we look at what happens when two teams receive the
same strategic objective “To become the market leader in organic cosmetics in terms
of operational performance within two years”.
In this case, the Production and Logistics departments undertake this objective
differently, but the top executives on level 1 have aligned beforehand.
The increase in the delivered service rate from the factory is coordinated with an
improvement in the delivery rate by remote suppliers, so the actions have “the same
direction”.
Now let us take the opposite example to that in Fig. 6.7. The objective is the same,
but the two departments have not coordinated beforehand, as shown in Fig. 6.8.
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Become the market leader in
LEVEL 1 organic cosmetics in terms of Increase On Time Delivery at
Z
operational performance within shipping gate from 95 to
two years 99%
Reduce by 50% the

LEVEL 2 Increase On Time Delivery at
inventory of work in
shipping gate from 95 to 99%
process taking into account
Manufacturing : internal performance
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
LEVEL 1 Become the market leader in

Increase On Time Delivery at
organic cosmetics in terms of
shipping gate from 95 to
Z
operational performance within
99%
two years
Increase On Time Delivery of

LEVEL 2 Increase On Time Delivery suppliers located in other regions
at shipping gate from 95 to from 75 to 95%
Supply chain : 99% by implementing local warehouse
and organize a milk run
Fig. 6.7 Example 3: A cascaded strategic objective with two departments aligned at the right level,
beforehand
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS

Reduce by 50% raw
organic cosmetics in terms of
Z
Manufacturing : material stored in the plant
operational performance within
two years
Reduce the raw material

LEVEL 2 Reduce by 50% raw material inventories of suppliers
Manufacturing : stored in the plant located in other regions by
75%
STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS

organic cosmetics in terms of Increase raw material safety
Z
Supply chain : operational performance within stocks by 20%
two years
LEVEL 2 Increase raw material safety Increase raw material

inventories for suppliers
Supply chain : stocks by 20%
located in other regions by
50%
Fig. 6.8 Example 3: A cascaded strategic objective with two departments not aligned beforehand
In this counterexample, the Manufacturing department proposes another strategic

action of increasing the buffer stocks. To achieve the same goal, the Supply Chain
department, which did not concert with the Manufacturing department, made the
opposite decision of reducing supplier inventories. In this case, the actions have
entirely opposite directions, and the teams on level 2 have a high risk of finding
themselves in contradiction simply because their leaders did not coordinate
together.
Unfortunately, this example illustrates a common situation in companies: the top
leaders separately consider their own strategy. If they are not aligned, they wait for
their teams to align themselves on objectives that do not allow it!
To avoid this situation, top leaders need to align themselves, then understand
what must be implemented and by whom, and last but not least, verify that the
teams involved can indeed act.
Lastly, remember that the point of impact is not necessarily at the most
operational level, but at the level where the action must be implemented.
Similarly, the point of impact depends on the objective and the corre-
sponding strategic action.
S.O IMPACT S.O S.O

S.A S.A S.A
1 2 3
POINT
IMPACT
S.A S.A S.A S.A
POINT
S.A S.A
IMPACT
S.A S.A
POINT
Fig. 6.9 Implementation of “Z” with three various strategic objectives (SO 1,2,3) and various points
of impact for strategic actions (SA)
Figure 6.9 illustrates that the point of impact can be at various levels of the
organization.
6.2.3 Skills and Competencies
What happens if a team cannot undertake its action decided at the point of
impact?
Remember that various leaders can and should suggest strategic actions, starting
with frontline leaders. Indeed, teams can make propositions for improvement via the
bottom-up2 process of feedback of experience.
However, some teams may lack the experience and skills to make propositions
and implement them. When the executive team analyses and takes the final decision
on the strategic action, it is up to each leader to question the capacity of their
teams to implement the action.
This is why it is essential that each leader knows their organization well,
together with its strengths and limitations, and discusses this transparently with
their teams.
If a team does not have the skills, the leader of the level above has to ensure the
definition and execution of the masterplan and, if need be, additional resources.
The choice of actions at the point of impact will not necessarily change, but the
leader of the level above will be more involved than if the action were cascaded
and managed by the team autonomously.
To illustrate this point, let us take another look at example 1 of Fig. 6.5. In this case,
the teams on level 3 do not have the skills. The strategic action to be implemented

STRATEGIC STRATEGIC
OBJECTIVES ACTIONS
Decrease by 40% the costs

Improve customer
LEVEL 1 : connected to customer claims
satisfaction from 50% to
and management.
80%
Improve customer Improve maximum lead time

LEVEL 2 : satisfaction from 50% to 80% delivery from 5 to 2 weeks.
Include 2 weeks of raw material

LEVEL 3 : inventory for the components
with more than 2 weeks of lead
time to be delivered
Fig. 6.10 Example 1: The strategic objective not cascaded to level 3
will then be defined on level 2. It is also level 2, which ensures the tracking of the
level 3 action plan and gives it additional support (Fig. 6.10).
This situation can also be seen as a test opportunity for the leader at the level
above to give new challenges to their team.
Matching skills and actions is a significant part of Hoshin kanri, which makes
it possible to grow the learning organization by focusing on the process of
execution as much as on the results.
In a way, Hoshin kanri is also used to identify the development potential
of leaders in the organization and to support their progress to develop the
company’s growth.
Because actions are consistent and connected at all levels, it is possible to under-
stand why success and failure happened in the past and how to repeat successes
and avoid failures for the future. This relates to understanding the impact of several
factors (action, resource, planning). Another significant advantage of the approach
is the capacity to develop itself as a learning organization.
The figure below illustrates examples of possible training with Hoshin kanri
compared to different results in comparison with MBO, which we have already
seen focuses only on results (Fig. 6.11).
MBO ONLY HOSHIN KANRI
RIGHT
RESULTS RIGHT RESOURCES RIGHT
BREAKTHROUGH
vs OBJECTIVES (skills + number) SCHEDULE
ACTIONS
☑ ☑ ☑ ☑
⌧ ☑ ☑ ⌧
⌧ ⌧ ☑ ☑
⌧ ☑ ⌧ ☑
Fig. 6.11 Examples of the advantages of Hoshin kanri used as training, by understanding the results
6.3 Problem Analysis and Solving
As we saw previously, it is vital to be able to solve problems that arise when executing
the strategic action plan. This skill is not only exclusive to Hoshin kanri but also for
daily management or continuous improvement, as we will see later. Since strategic
actions are multidisciplinary and complex by nature, the problems encountered
can, therefore, also be new and complicated for the teams.
The teams must therefore be comfortable with analysis and problem-solving so
that they can put these into practice quickly. Effective analysis is the key to defining
the roots-causes of problems and how to solve them. Deploying joint training ensures
the teams are aligned and share a common language.
What are the analysis and problem-solving methods? Are there different
approaches?
In our daily lives and from a young age, we have learned how to solve problems.
The simplest model that we use more or less consciously has four stages (which
match the PDCA3 cycle we saw above):
● STAGE 1—PLAN—DEFINITION: What are the key elements to understand and
describe the problem? Does the problem hide other issues?
● STAGE 2—PLAN—CAUSES: What is the immediate cause of the problem, and
what are the root causes (the origin of the problem)?
● STAGE 3—DO & CHECK—ACTIONS/REACTIONS/CORRECTIONS: What
actions would eliminate the root causes? Are the measures effective straight away?
Should something else be corrected? Does the analysis have any errors?

6.4 Management Using the Reversed Pyramid 43
● STAGE 4—ACT—LEARNING: What was learned? How can we avoid having

the same problem in the future or elsewhere?
Are there other key conditions for success to be considered for effective
problem-solving?
● To be effective, people must work together. Companies or organizations are made

of teams, and they are winning teams.
● Teams that work on the same problem must apply factual and rigorous analysis
together in a common mindset.
● It may be a good idea to integrate additional intermediate stages, according
to the complexity of the problem, for example, using subsequent questioning to
analyze the cause (Vinardi 2013).
● Solving problems is not exclusively about being effective but also about being
creative, particularly if new solutions to new situations are needed. That is the
case when implementing innovation. Indeed, in questions of innovation, engaging
breakthroughs, the nature of problems, and their causes can be a discovery expe-
rience for the teams. Experience relating to issues past and present must be a
starting point, as well as finding new solutions for new problems.
● Lastly, solving problems means learning, in particular, learning how not to repeat
them. An organization must be a learning one.
The teams must therefore be trained effectively and have a common language
to analyze and resolve problems effectively before or at the very start of Hoshin
kanri deployment at the latest.
The first problems to be solved are those at the lowest level, producing and creating
value (operators, salespeople, purchasers, technicians, etc.). This brings us to the
concept of the reversed pyramid, which will follow.
6.4 Management Using the Reversed Pyramid
As we have said above, the Hoshin kanri approach starts with the teams at the
shopfloor so that the current state can be as reliable and accurate as possible to
set the most favorable conditions for success.
To this aim, top executives and leaders need to “go to the shopfloor as often as
possible”. The information must flow quickly and with the least resistance possible.
That means having the smallest number of management levels so senior executives
can make the best decisions.
SUPPLIERS CUSTOMERS
VALUE CHAIN
SHOP FRONT LINE LEADERS
TOP
LEADERS
VISION
(BREAKTHROUGH) STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES
(BREAKTHROUGH) STRATEGIC ACTIONS
Fig. 6.12 Illustration of the reversed pyramid
Top executives are responsible for having an organization that focuses on

teams’ successes on the lowest level and verifying it is so when they make their
rounds.
All these principles are shown in what is called the reversed pyramid, which
illustrates the organization (Fig. 6.12).
The reversed pyramid is not a natural concept for most companies and organi-
zations. And yet, the principles of the reversed pyramid are part of the successful
deployment of Hoshin kanri, just as they are for the success of Lean4 (Vinardi 2013).
Some points must be taken into account to invert the pyramid (Vinardi 2013):
● Structure the frontline teams so they are autonomous to carry out their daily
tasks and give them the means of carrying them out completely securely, at the
best possible quality, first time, and delivered as quickly as possible, therefore at
the best cost.
● Design the rest of the chart starting from the shopfloor to minimize the number
of hierarchical levels. The organization and, therefore, all the teams are turned
towards customer service and the teams at the shopfloor. During their rounds, this
must be validated by the top executives.
● Design a system of indicators built logically, consolidating what makes sense for
the lowest-level teams. To implement this last point, it is essential to have a Tree
of indicators.

6.5 Key Performance Indicator Tree 45
6.5 Key Performance Indicator Tree
The Tree of indicators is called a “KPI tree”. The tree structure makes sense for all
the performance indicators:
● Those who measure performance daily,
● Those liked to business strategy are therefore identified in the scope of Hoshin
kanri.
The image of a tree (referring to the meaning of nemawashi once again) shows
how indicators must be organized. Each root is an indicator managed by the shopfloor
teams. These indicators join the trunk, representing the company’s key indicators.
Another way of understanding the concept is by taking the example of a car
dashboard. It displays a few key indicators to the driver simply, such as the petrol
level or the car’s speed.
These days, cars have hundreds of sensors and, therefore, indicators, but these do
not activate up to the eyes of the driver unless a problem occurs. This simple example
illustrates how the Tree of indicators can be built and how problem escalation makes
sense.
Top executives, however, do not need to know and track all the indicators
used at the shopfloor but only to be informed if the gap is not corrected when one
of them goes adrift of what is expected.
Sometimes it is enough to consolidate the performance indicator (e.g., the left
KPI in Fig. 6.13) with all the teams. For example, that happens when we want to
consolidate the number of accidents.
Let us summarize a complete example of the two indicator types in Fig. 6.13,
Table 6.1.
KPI a KPI b
KPI a KPI a KPI b1 KPI b2
KPI KPI KPI KPI KPI

KPI a KPI a KPI a KPI a KPI a
b1.1 b1.2 b2.1 b2.2 b2.3
Fig. 6.13 Tree of indicators with two examples (KPI a and KPI b)
Table 6.1 Examples of indicators illustrating the tree structure of KPIs a and b
Indicator KPI a Indicator KPI b
LEVEL 0 KPI a: KPI b:
Top Leader Total number of accidents with or operating margin (e)
without stoppage
LEVEL 1 KPI a: KPI b1:
Total number of accidents with or production cost price (e/product)
without stoppage
LEVEL 2 KPI a: KPI b1.1:
Total number of accidents with or cost (e) of raw materials
without stoppage
LEVEL 3 KPI a: KPI b1.1.1:
Total number of accidents with or cost (e) of rejected raw materials
without stoppage
LEVEL 4 KPI a: KPI b 1.1.1.1:
Frontline Leaders Total number of accidents with or cost (e) of raw materials rejected, of
without stoppage equipment A
In the case of KPI a, the indicator is the same for all levels; it is “just” consolidated
with all the teams.
On the right, KPI b is not the same for all the teams; performance indicators that
make sense on each level must be defined. For example:
● To track the costs of quality non-compliance in an online sales company, a
customer service employee tracks the number of errors reported by customers
and their cost (handling and redispatching).
● In the same company, a logistics warehouse employee tracks the order preparation
errors (lost hours, for example).
It is up to each team to define and track the performance indicators which

make sense for them, according to their activities and objectives.
Consequently, for the top executives, it is essential to have a consistent tree
of indicators from the executive management to the shopfloor.
This is how top executives can be confident in building this system of
indicators. Indeed, even if they track only a few indicators at their own level,
with a logical and well-built tree structure, gaps and problems are reported
when significant problems occur.
6.6 Specificities of Operational and Functional Teams 47
6.6 Specificities of Operational and Functional Teams
The indicators concern all the teams, including operational ones, which are directly
involved in creating added value (research and development, purchasing, production,
sales, and after-sales, for example) and also concern the functional teams, i.e., those
who support the operational teams (human resources, finances, quality, operational
excellence, etc.) by definition.
Do the roles of teams influence how Hoshin kanri is implemented? Do

functional teams have the same deployment as operational teams?
Let us reconsider for a few moments the role of functional teams. To be

autonomous, operational teams on the lowest level must work with functional teams.
This is why for example, in general, a factory works with a human resources team, a
finance team, a maintenance team, a quality (etc.) team). The bigger the organization
or companies, the bigger the distributed functional teams are at the various levels
where they are used to create synergies and avoid duplicating the teams which
support the operational teams.
Let us take the example of a factory again. The factory human resources leader
reports hierarchically (i.e., directly) to the factory director, and reports functionally
(i.e., business, job expertise) to the human resources director of the division, grouping
several factories, for example.
Following the strategy deployment, the factory leader shares their needs with the
factory human resources leader, who then defines a masterplan on its own level.
Similarly, the top company management could also make specific requirements
to the Group Management of Human Resources, which could, in turn, cascade part
of these actions to factory Human Resources leaders. Those elements then feed into
the factory’s Human Resources masterplan.
Whatever the case, Factory Human Resources Leader has a support role and never
defines strategic directions, whether by or for themselves. These serve company
objectives even if functional teams have a business strategy.
This principle must be applied to deploy Hoshin kanri in the company: opera-
tional teams validate the strategic objectives and actions starting from the
highest level, which, since they are deployed by masterplan on each level,
will generate specific actions for functional teams.
To illustrate this mechanism, Fig. 6.14 shows how functional teams do not create
[their] needs alone but must contribute to the global strategy.
MAIN VALUE STREAM:

OPERATIONAL TEAMS
PLURIANNUEL
MISSION ANNUEL
DEFINITION DES
ACTIONS
VISION STRATEGIQUES
DEFINITION EXECUTION DES

OBJECTIFS
DES OBJECTIFS ACTIONS
STRATEGIQUES
STRATEGIQUES STRATEGIQUES
FORMALISATION DU
RETOUR
D’EXPERIENCE
Source: C. VINARDI 2019 PhD - UTC
FUNCTIONAL FUNCTIONAL
TEAMS TEAMS
PLURIANNUEL PLURIANNUEL
MISSION MISSION ANNUEL
ANNUEL
DEFINITION DES DEFINITION DES
ACTIONS ACTIONS
VISION STRATEGIQUES VISION STRATEGIQUES
EXECUTION DES DEFINITION EXECUTION DES

OBJECTIFS DEFINITION OBJECTIFS
DES OBJECTIFS ACTIONS DES OBJECTIFS ACTIONS
STRATEGIQUES STRATEGIQUES STRATEGIQUES
STRATEGIQUES
FORMALISATION DU FORMALISATION DU
RETOUR RETOUR
D’EXPERIENCE D’EXPERIENCE
Source: C. VINARDI 2019 PhD - UTC Source: C. VINARDI 2019 PhD - UTC
PLURIANNUEL
MISSION ANNUEL
DEFINITION DES
ACTIONS
VISION STRATEGIQUES
DEFINITION EXECUTION DES

OBJECTIFS
DES OBJECTIFS ACTIONS
STRATEGIQUES
FORMALISATION DU
RETOUR
D’EXPERIENCE
Source: C. VINARDI 2019 PhD - UTC
Fig. 6.14 Hoshin kanri deployment through the value stream
Practically and ideally, functional teams will wait for operational teams to have
finished defining their needs and masterplans before determining their own,
using the Z-deployment.
Of course, they may anticipate and prepare a proposition by exchanging
with operational teams, particularly to anticipate their needs.
References
C. Vinardi, Le Lean : atouts, impacts et limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)

sation et de l’industrie 4.0. (Université de Technologie de Compiègne, Français, 2019) NNT:
2019COMP2500, tel-03201462
Chapter 7
Using Hoshin Kanri with Other
Management Rhythms or Key Periods
Abstract Hoshin kanri is about strategy design and deployment, which is one of the
three primary rhythms of management, with the other two being daily performance
management and continuous improvement management. Standard visual manage-
ment is a foundation for each of the three, and daily performance management is
vital for the sustainability of the other two. This chapter describes and explains the
different rhythms and how the three need to work together, according to hierarchical
level and time of implementation.
Hoshin kanri is about defining strategic objective breakthroughs to implement

innovation and corresponding improvements to prepare for the future and reach
results that are unimaginable by today’s reference. Hoshin kanri aims to prepare the
standards of tomorrow.
Always remember that innovation and breakthroughs do not concern only the
product but also services, the organization, skills, and external partnerships,
amongst others.
The time needed to define and implement breakthroughs is usually longer

for senior executives than for mid-level and frontline leaders. Because of their
complexity, strategic actions often require creating multidisciplinary transverse
teams. As we have seen, problems can occur in achieving strategic actions, so the
capacity to solve problems quickly is critical.
At one end of Hoshin kanri, we have strategy management; at the other, there is
the daily management of our professional lives.
Daily management includes the current standards management that drives the
teams’ daily efforts, tracking the expected performance using standards, and solving
everyday problems. Daily management concerns all the leaders and their teams at
all management levels.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_7
50 7 Using Hoshin Kanri with Other Management Rhythms or Key Periods
Shopfloor and frontline leaders will allocate more time than others to this
kind of management, which is the opposite of what we see in Hoshin kanri.
Besides breakthrough and daily management, there is another better-known type
of improvement: the continuous improvement called KAIZEN™ in Lean.1
In Japanese, “Kai” means “improvement”, and “Zen” means “good, better”. The
term KAIZEN™ is a trademark of the Kaizen Institute and translates to “con-
tinuous improvement” or “step-by-step” improvement. Continuous improvement
mainly consists in improving an existing standard by incremental progress. Hoshin
kanri rather concerns what the Japanese call “Kaikaku”, where “Kaku” means
“breakthrough”, as in “breaking through”. Altogether, Kaikaku means “breakthrough
improvement”.
Improvement actions can concern a single team or may need multidisciplinary
transverse teams to be created for the most complex ones.
As for daily management and breakthrough management, problems can arise
during execution, which is vital to solve quickly.
Continuous improvement concerns all leaders, but it must be adequately
coordinated by mid-level leaders who make the connection between frontline
leaders and top executives.
Breakthrough and continuous improvements often overlap and intercon-
nect; sometimes, several improvements are needed before they are successful. Also,
note that progress is more often a result of continuous improvement than break-
throughs. Let us look at product innovation on the incandescence light bulb to
illustrate this in particular:
• 1835—Bowman Lindsay, a British inventor, developed the first known prototype
of the electric bulb → this is a breakthrough improvement.
• 1850—Joseph Swann, also British, improved the prototype by using a filament
made of carbonized paper in a vacuum bulb → this is an obvious continuous
improvement of Bowman Lindsay idea, but the result was still not convincing.
• 1879—Thomas Edison, an American, took the invention of Joseph Swann and
filed a patent for the electric light bulb using a Japanese bamboo filament → this
is another continuous improvement that unfortunately burns out after thirty hours.
• 1882—Thomas Edison successfully created a carbon filament to replace bamboo.
(The carbon itself is later replaced by tungsten) → this is an obvious continuous
improvement, and this time it was successful.

7.1 Linking Hoshin Kanri to Standard Visual Management 51
Joseph Swann and Thomas Edison together founded the Edison & Swan Electric
Light Company.
Therefore, the electric bulb was not born of continuous improvement starting
from a candle but rather by a breakthrough made by Bowman Lindsay, who
allowed the world to be lit up. However, the final marketed innovation, which came
from continuous improvements, benefited from Bowman Lindsay’s breakthrough.
This kind of sequence can be seen in other examples (For instance, cars were not
invented by optimizing the horse-driven carriage).
Whether the improvement is continuous or breakthrough, it should not be consid-
ered thinking in terms of “one-for-one”: one action for one point of impact or scope.
Also, consider carrying out the same action in other teams and on other equip-
ment. With each improvement (whether continuous or breakthrough), just as with
each problem solved, it is, therefore, relevant to ask which other teams, which other
equipment, could have the same issues and the same solution in the “Act” phase
of the feedback of experience of PDCA.
When applied on a larger scale, a local continuous improvement can lead
to a very significant overall contribution to the result, even breakthrough
results. This prospective phase, which functional transverse teams must support,
must nevertheless be holistic.
7.1 Linking Hoshin Kanri to Standard Visual Management
Having said that breakthrough improvements and continuous improvements

are connected, is there a link between breakthrough improvements and daily
(performance) management?
To establish a relation between Hoshin kanri and daily management, we must

look at the notion of standards again. A standard is a set of sequences and rules by
which the best performance is reached at a given time, according to the available
resources. A standard, just like any other rule, delivers and therefore, performs only
if it is managed.
Being managed means being under control (verifying its application and
correcting discrepancies or problems).
Standards must be formalized with and for, those who will use them. They must
be simple and easily understood. And they must be managed accessibly by all. They
must therefore be visually managed (Vinardi 2013).
These three aspects govern the standard and are defined together as the “Golden
Triangle” or “visual coordination of the standard” (Fig. 7.1).
Fig. 7.1 “Golden Triangle” STANDARD

(Source Vinardi 2013)
GOLDEN VISUAL
MANAGEMENT
TRIANGLE
STANDARD
MANAGEMENT
Let us go back to management rhythms. The current standard defines the

starting point used as a reference for any management action, particularly daily
management and all improvement forms.
The future standard (relating to innovation and breakthroughs) is entirely different
from the initial one. It is the one considered for Hoshin kanri.
Once the future standard is defined (and implemented on one or several strategic
actions), then daily management must ensure that it is respected, corrected, and
continually improved. Successful breakthroughs imply that new standards are
integrated into daily management.
Sometimes a standard is not formalized, often in transactional activities such

as Services or Sales where autonomy and independence can be confused. But
since work is not done alone, everyone must have at least a few operating rules
to contribute effectively to the community.
That also happens sometimes in production, where (whole product) cycles
may be very long, or the production series is very small.
In these cases, it is wrong to assume that formalizing standards is useless
because of the volume to be made or that operational teams (i.e., “those who
make”) can do without them.
Remember that repeatable performance is impossible without standards, i.e.,
without a reference. Also, it is impossible to correct, improve, and therefore,
learn without them.
Also, remember that operational teams must take part in updating the stan-
dards (to make sure they are understandable and to accept them), and they
cannot write these alone: as they cannot “be both judge and jury”.
Lastly, there is a variety of means nowadays, such as digital tools (embedded
videos, augmented reality, etc.); therefore, there is little excuse not to formalize
them!
7.1 Linking Hoshin Kanri to Standard Visual Management 53
Once the question of standards is addressed, the various management rhythms

interleave around them.
What is the connection between standards (current and future), performance

(current and future), management rhythms and problem-solving?
Case 1 The current standard is in place and runs without any problem.
Daily management makes sure that the current standard produces the expected results.
The situation is known as “stable” (no major problems), and Case 3 can then be
considered, i.e., for improvement (either continuous or breakthrough).
Case 2 The current standard is in place, but the expected performance is not reached.
With the standard under observation by daily management, the discrepancies are
highlighted, and problem-solving can start. It only ends when performance stays
durably at the expected level.
Then Case 1 can be considered.
Case 3 The current situation is stable, and future performance is expected to be

higher than the current standard can provide.
In this case, gap analysis will discriminate between continuous and breakthrough
improvement.
• If future performance is much higher than current standard performance, the
model must be changed completely (and, therefore, the standard too). In this
case, the expected performance must result from the vision to be consistent with
the business strategy.
• If future performance is within a few percent (10–15% maximum) of the current
standard performance, then we are in the case of continuous improvement.
It should be noted that when a problem occurs during the implementation of
the action plan, problem-solving ends only if the action plan correctly produces the
expected result.
Here is an illustration of the mechanism described above (Fig. 7.2):
REPLACE THE STANDARD

FOR BREAKTHROUGH IMPROVEMENT
FUTURE
STANDARD CURRENT
STANDARD
UPDATE THE STANDARD
FOR CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
EXPECTED
PERFORMANCE
PROCESS CONTROL PROCESS CONTROL
FUTURE PERFORMANCE
3
FUTURE EXPECTED PERFORMANCE
1
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
2
CURRENT PERFORMANCE
= EXPECTED ONE > CURRENT PERFORMANCE = EXPECTED ONE < EXPECTED ONE
GAP PROBLEM GAP PROBLEM

ANALYSIS SOLVING ANALYSIS SOLVING
PROPOSITIONS PROPOSITIONS
ACTION PLAN ACTION PLAN

BREAKTHROUGH CONTINUOUS DAILY
IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT MANAGEMENT
Fig. 7.2 Consistency of management rhythms and problem-solving
7.2 Importance of Daily Performance Management

for Sustainability
When improvements are achieved, the newly reached performance can not be
sustained if continuity is not maintained. This is a recurring problem for many
organizations where much energy is invested in improving without investing
equally in effective and robust daily management for the long term. This results
in saw-tooth performance improvements and the potential frustration of teams.
Management rhythms need to interwork smoothly according to the standard

because daily management has a leading role in ensuring sustainability
after each continuous or breakthrough improvement.
As we have stated, even a few breakthroughs will generate substantial perfor-

mance changes, although they are very energy-consuming for the organization.
Continuous improvement is carried out in each of the many actions. Sustainability
over the years is achieved through daily performance management.
Let us go through an illustrated case to understand how performance is sustained
over the years. The legend is the same as above: red for daily management, white for
continuous improvement, and blue for breakthrough improvement (Fig. 7.3).
In the example, our company sets its strategy breakthrough (vision) at four years.
That means the strategic objectives and corresponding strategic actions have a 4-year
plan.
7.2 Importance of Daily Performance Management for Sustainability 55
PERFORMANCE
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
Fig. 7.3 Example of the impact of the various management rhythms on performance
• In year 1: A significant part of the performance results from some (Hoshin kanri)
breakthroughs, and a tiny amount is from continuous improvement.
• In year 2: The improvement standards, having been updated and revised, now
become the “current” standards. So daily management takes over to sustain the
performance obtained in year 1. Also, a significant part of the performance is
still brought by breakthroughs, but the effect of continuous improvement starts to
emerge.
• In year 3: The efforts of years 1 and 2 continue to be consolidated by daily
management. The last phase of the breakthrough action plan bears fruit, and
the proportion of continuous improvement increases. It comes from continuous
improvement of breakthroughs.
• In year 4: This year, top executives prepare the new strategic cycle; therefore,
performance improvement results from continuous improvement.
• In our example, for each year, the effort of daily management alone produces the
performance of the total effort of the previous year.
• In year 5: A new cycle starts: The same comment as year 1, a significant proportion
of performance is brought by (Hoshin kanri) breakthroughs.
Several points are to be noted from this example beyond the clear need for
robust and effective daily management:
• The deployment of breakthroughs (and the expected performance) must be
measured correctly. For a cycle with a 3-year vision, it is imperative to
implement breakthroughs only in the first two years.
• Breakthroughs with substantial improvements require a settling time that
must be planned. Just as in athletics, it is unfeasible to think of going faster
by sprinting all the time over long distances.
We can also illustrate the opposite of the example above, which happens if daily
management does not take the lead in consolidating and sustaining performance
(Fig. 7.4).
PERFORMANCE
Big efforts
Lack of management of Lack of
& risks
new standards management of
New standards
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5

YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
Fig. 7.4 Counterexample to illustrate what happens when daily performance management is not
efficient and therefore, does not support breakthrough and continuous improvement
• In year 1: A significant part of the performance results from some breakthroughs,

and a tiny amount is from continuous improvement.
• In year 2: The standards relating to the improvements have not yet been updated
and revised to be the “current” standards. Daily management does not take over
sufficiently to sustain the performance obtained in year 1, so breakthroughs must
be slowed down.
• In year 3: The efforts of years 1 and 2 are not entirely consolidated by daily
management. Performance increases but does not reach its maximum.
• In year 4: To catch up with performance that year, top executives prepare a
new strategic cycle with significant breakthroughs and a tiny part of continuous
improvement.
• In this example, for each year, the effort of daily management alone does not
produce the performance of the total effort of the previous year.
• In year 5: Daily management performance improves but not enough to consol-
idate the performance required. Teams must rest, but meanwhile, continuous
improvement actions are decided, resulting in a saw-tooth performance.
This opposite example illustrates what happens when the management rhythms are
set coherently. It is also vital to consider planning, i.e., the sequence of management
rhythms over time.
7.3 Connection of Management Rhythms
As we saw in Sect. 6.4, all the organization’s teams must be able to solve problems
sustainably as soon as possible.
7.3 Connection of Management Rhythms 57
The problems to be solved are very different according to the differing manage-
ment rhythms:
• Breakthroughs are new by nature and often complex to implement, resulting in
unforeseen problems to solve. Moreover, breakthrough dramatically affects the
stability of operations (which takes a long time to recover).
• Continuous improvement is about progressive change. There is a disturbance, but
it is less consequential.
• Daily management in stable conditions (outside disaster situations where a ware-
house catches fire, primary equipment stops working, a case relating to a world-
wide pandemic, etc.), discrepancies with standards are relatively minor. What
usually makes the difference is the number and diversity of problems with respect
to the teams’ maturity (the number of leaders and their skills in particular).
To represent the various cycles, Fig. 7.5a is an example of a time scale with
a very simplified sequence of management rhythms that could arise. Continuous
improvement is in grey:
In reality, situations are a little more complex (as seen in Fig. 7.5b). Daily manage-
ment impinges on problem-solving, and the graph is therefore, not completely linear
(performance varies in a finite tolerance interval).
When continuous improvement is undertaken, it naturally produces results with
an increase in performance and problems. The performance takes time to stabilize.
When it does, and when the improved standard is updated, daily management takes
over.
Breakthroughs are then undertaken, and the resulting performance is very high, but
in general, the implementation of complex actions destabilizes the system, bringing
problems that must be addressed. The stabilization period is, therefore, more extended
than the continuous improvement previously carried out. When the new (hence
future) standard replaces the (improved initial) standard, then daily management
takes over.
Another way to show the example above is Fig. 7.5b, which highlights the
instability generated by improvements.
Therefore, problem-solving and standards management are found in all aspects
of management rhythms.
When implementing improvements, it is imperative to ensure that stability is

restored before taking any new action.
If not, daily performance management will not suffice, and teams will
quickly be overloaded. This can all lead to a catastrophe, the opposite of the
initial intention of improving the situation!
a
Daily
PERFORMANCE
Performance
Management
Breakthrough
Daily improvement
Performance = innovation
Daily Daily Management >20%
Performance Performance
Management Management Continuous Improvement
A few % – 15%
Problem
TIME
b PERFORMANCE
PROBLEM SOLVING
NEW STANDARD
(FUTURE)
= change the
current standard PROBLEM SOLVING
BREAKTHROUGH
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVED DAILY
STRANDARD PROBLEM SOLVING PERFORMANCE
CONTINUOUS MANAGEMENT
= actualize IMPROVEMENT
current standard
PROBLEM SOLVING PROBLEM SOLVING
INITIAL
STANDARD DAILY DAILY
= current PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
TIME
Fig. 7.5 a A very simplified example of deployment of management rhythm planning against time,
b Example of the deployment of management rhythm planning against time
We have just seen how management rhythms can interwork with the standard
over time. Lastly, a significant point to understand is how management rhythms
work together and how they fit into leaders’ routines according to their position in
the organization.
7.4 Time Balance Between Management Rhythms
An illustration called the “Nemoto diagram” is often used to show the distribution
of the three principal management rhythms that leaders must apprehend according
to their level. It is named after its author Masao Nemoto.
As a former top executive of Toyota, he had various operational functions as a
company frontline leader on the Toyota board, where he was also in charge of the
7.4 Time Balance Between Management Rhythms 59
HOSHIN KANRI
INNOVATE
TOP LEADERS Realize breakthrough improvements
Define new standards
STANDARD VISUAL MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM SOLVING & ESCALATION

IMPROVE
PDCA CYCLE
current standards
in a continuous
way
FRONT LINE RESPECT & MAINTAIN

LEADERS Perform with current standards
DAILY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Fig. 7.6 An example of the Nemoto Diagram
deployment problem of Hoshin kanri. He took part in creating a concept that we will
use as inspiration in Fig. 7.6.
The figure shows the ideal time management for leaders of the best-performing
companies.
The three primary management rhythms are shown, with their importance,
according to the position in the hierarchical line.
Problem-solving is there at all levels and for all cycles. Standards management
with the golden triangle and using the PDCA cycle are also necessary at all levels.
Let us look at how time is spent in each cycle:
• Frontline, time is mainly devoted to respecting, maintaining current standards,
and solving local problems they are in charge of. At least 10 to 20% of the time
must be for continuous improvement, and a few percent are for implementing
innovations when teams are concerned. Below is the relevant part of Fig. 7.6.
• Top management: the situation is the opposite. Between 50 and 70% of the time
must be spent innovating (to prepare future standards). At least 20 to 30% of the
time must be allocated to continuous improvement. Between 5 and 10% of the time
is for daily management, including top executives’ standards and the verification
of the respect of standards, and lastly, handling significant and systemic problems
arising daily. Below is the relevant part of Fig. 7.6.
• Mid-level leaders: according to their level, the balance can vary between inno-
vation, continuous improvement, and daily management. Mid-level leaders also
play a crucial role in the upward and downward transmission of problems and
propositions for improvement.
The notion of balance is essential, as Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd)

highlights.
“Top and senior leaders must fulfill their primary responsibility of main-
taining and improving standards. When they design innovative products and
processes, they must also standardize and continuous improvement to stan-
dards. Without this balance between innovation, standardization and contin-
uous improvement, the system will not be sustainable, and growth will be
impeded. Many companies still have a long way to go in applying a holistic
strategy approach connected to continuous improvement behaviors on the
shopfloor.”
Besides, the balance of management rhythms is one of the critical factors in the
success or failure of strategy deployment (Cândido and Santos 2015).
If top executives carefully took into account the needs and constraints of
the shopfloor and if shopfloor leaders are sufficient in skills and number, then
mid-level leaders should easily be able to establish the link between the two and
carry out their function (Sousa-Posa et al. 2001).
It is not necessarily the case in “real life”, and mid-level leaders may also lack
skills.
Mid-level leaders are generally a good indicator of the degree of confidence
and maturity in the organization and a good indicator of consistency of the
strategic actions undertaken.
7.4 Time Balance Between Management Rhythms 61
HOSHIN KANRI
TOP LEADERS INNOVATE
STANDARD VISUAL MANAGEMENT
PROBLEM SOLVING & ESCALATION
PDCA CYCLE
RESPECT & MAINTAIN
FRONT LINE
LEADERS
DAILY PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
Fig. 7.7 Example of the Nemoto Diagram in a crisis
Whereas top executives often complain about the lack of commitment of inter-
mediate teams, it would be more beneficial for them to seek and understand their
difficulties.
Figure 7.7, which is a hybrid form of the previous figure, also shows what happens
when frontline leaders are overloaded with problems. Often, these situations are
explained by three main factors, which are not exclusive:
• processes or the system which supports performance are failing,
• frontline leaders are insufficient in number or skills,
• objectives and strategic actions decided by top executives lacking direction or
alignment.
Whatever the case, the first consequence is that mid-level leaders, like top
executives in the most extreme cases, do not commit sufficient time to continuous
improvement and even less to implement strategy and breakthroughs.
Mid-level leaders are those who manage frontline leaders, and senior executives
are those who should ensure the implementation of the strategy. The management
breaks either because the processes cannot support decisions, or because frontline
leaders cannot follow through because of their problems, or because mid-level leaders
do not manage to convert the strategic decisions made by top executives into actions
that make sense for operational teams.
The second consequence is that frontline leaders only focus on daily problems:
they have no time to implement innovations for continuous improvement, no matter
what senior executives decide.
To resolve this situation, it will be necessary that:
• Top executives focus on a few genuinely vital objectives to ensure that teams
stay focused.
• Therefore, top executives go to the shopfloor, closer to frontline teams and
customers, to put themselves at their service and understand how to help them
as best as possible.
• Mid-level and frontline leaders learn how to be more effective in analyzing

and solving problems, and escalate those they cannot solve and be trained,
supported, or even replaced in the most extreme cases.
Failing this, the resulting performance is likely to be inconsistent, as it often is.
If the situation continues, leaders will spend a lot of energy without managing to
maintain the standard.
When a crisis occurs (e.g., a warehouse catches fire, equipment breaks down, or
a lockdown due to Covid 19), leaders must often halt continuous improvements
and breakthroughs to ensure that daily management is effective.
Frontline and mid-level leaders must return to basics and concentrate on
daily performance management and crisis problem-solving.
Top executives must, for their part, provide the support that their teams need.
They must also focus on preparing for those breakthroughs related to the crisis.
Lastly, significant crises are also the opportunity to update the vision.
Failing that, and in particular, if senior executives continue to push for strategy-
related breakthroughs, the organization will likely find itself in the Nemoto Diagram
in a crisis (as in Fig. 7.7).
Even the best companies have troubles, but the organization’s strength lies in
its capacity to deal with them quickly and sustainably. The answer is to contain
the effect of the crises in time quickly. If the impact of a problem persists, it is
obviously neither healthy nor viable for the organization.
On this point, is a crisis the right time or the wrong time to begin implementing
Hoshin kanri?
The question will be addressed in the next chapter.
References
C.J.F. Cândido, S.P. Santos, Strategy implementation: what is the failure rate? J. Manag. Organ.
21(2), 237–262 (2015)
A. Sousa-Posa, H. Nystrom, H. Wiebe, A cross-cultural study of the differing effects of corporate
culture on TQM in three countries. Int. J. Qual. Reliab. Manage. 18(7), 744–761 (2001) https://
doi.org/10.1108/EUM0000000005778
C. Vinardi, Le Lean : atouts, impacts et limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)
Chapter 8
Engaging in Hoshin Kanri
Abstract When leaders, especially top leaders, are ready to start Hoshin kanri, this
chapter covers the questions and answers they will ask. How is the right environment
created so that Hoshin kanri can grow? Is it necessary to fully deploy a performance
system beforehand, such as lean, or to implement basic elements first? How is culture
changed, and how is change supported? The chapter ends with assessing the external
support and resources for leaders and top leaders.
8.1 How to Start

8.1.1 Different Starting Point from a Performance
Management Maturity Perspective
There are three main starting situations:

● Case no 1: The company already has a mature performance and performance
system (in Lean1 or an equivalent). In this case, daily performance management,
standards visual management, and problem-solving are already firmly in place.
● Case no 2: The company has just started implementing its performance
system or has a system that is still not mature. Here, the foundations are being
deployed or are not yet deployed at all management levels (from top executives
to operational employees) or not throughout the value chain (e.g., not everyone
does R&D, e.g., sales).
● Case no 3: The company doesn’t yet have a performance system. In this case,
there may be basic notions (by leaders who have them, also applying common
sense), but there is no common language between the teams, so they cannot share
easily and quickly.
Case no 1 is arguably the most favorable situation to deploy Hoshin kanri. Indeed,
daily performance management with standards visual management and problem-
solving means it is possible to consider implementing breakthrough improvements
smoothly.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_8
64 8 Engaging in Hoshin Kanri
Because of their very nature and their expected impact, breakthrough actions
entail planning things that were never carried out before and furthermore, that involve
multidisciplinary teams so, therefore, often carry a high risk.
Theoretically, it would be more logical to implement breakthroughs only after
initiating continuous improvement and the fundamentals referred to previously.
This ideal order includes the opportunity to learn how to be effective gradually,
which is an advantage.
However, the reality for companies is often quite different:
● Definition and formalization of the performance system: Some companies
never completely define their performance system or, on the contrary, have had a
string of different ones in the past, not necessarily with suitable formats.
● Implementation of the performance system: When there is a performance
system, it can be complicated and therefore, tends to be poorly or partly imple-
mented, resulting in being partially effective. In some organizations the perfor-
mance system is suitable, but its deployment is restricted to some departments
only and not applied to all value chains. Generally, top executives will not wait
for implementation to be done in all teams.
● Lack of experience and understanding by top executives about the usefulness
of performance systems: Still today, company top executives are seldom aware
of, or experienced in, performance methods and some even don’t implement them,
particularly in large companies. Yet, the majority have read about them and can
talk about them, sometimes even very well. However, many top executives still do
not participate in daily performance management at their level, regularly do not
implement problem-solving processes, or are involved too little in the continuous
improvements of their teams.
Even in Lean2 companies, particularly in production, top executives are seldom
involved in these approaches. We will look at this later when considering the
conditions for success and the factors of failure. Besides, the main risk without
experience is that top executives have fluctuating words and deeds, often without
realizing it.
● Organizations do not correlate performance systems and strategy: Besides,
organizations do not wait to implement the fundamentals—to enable sustain-
able strategic actions—to implement strategy! Every company has, in general, a
strategy and some innovations that they try to implement. They do not wait to
have effective fundamentals and improvement approaches.
But it is precisely the top executives who define strategies. Hoshin kanri for its
part, “speaks in concrete terms” to top executives because it says how to define and
carry out strategy effectively.
Applying Hoshin kanri without waiting for the most favorable conditions, as for
case no 1 (i.e., where the fundamentals are already implemented) will enable top exec-
utives to be more effective in their strategic approach while initiating and providing
support in other management rhythms. It is quite a different approach; it is not the

8.1 How to Start 65
easiest nor the most intuitive, and it means implementing the fundamentals in
parallel. The aim is that top executives understand that having the various rhythms
is crucial to obtaining sustainable performance. It is nevertheless an approach that
works. That was chosen by one start-up top executive.
“At the very beginning, I started to read some books about Lean Management
as one of our investors invited me in thinking more about Lean management and
process. However, I began Hoshin Kanri with my team before implementing
Lean and before experimenting with it myself. We just introduced problem-
solving in parallel.
Starting by Hoshin Kanri and the strategy allowed to give purpose to our needs
and to be more efficient in reaching collective performance.”
To give Lean3 real sense, it is necessary to deploy Hoshin kanri because Hoshin
kanri connects it with the business strategy (Vinardi 2013). Unfortunately, Hoshin
kanri is excluded from most of the publications on Lean,4 meaning this point is not
well-known.
8.1.2 Context to Take into Account
Top executives, particularly CEOs, are usually the decision-makers to engage in

Hoshin kanri for the organization.
Of course, suppose some leaders have had a successful experience with Hoshin
kanri for example, in other companies. In that case, they will look to implement the
principles in their own teams and at least benefit from them locally. These executives
nevertheless have to accommodate the rest of the organization because they will not
speak the same strategic language. They can sometimes find themselves isolated and
even misunderstood, even if they have better results.
Since it is critical, what can make our top executives decide to engage in Hoshin
kanri?
Generally, the starting point is some kind of a need. Top executives hear of the
approach, which speaks to them because of their problems at a given time. A lack
of effectiveness and alignment is very often expressed. This is confirmed in the
following statements:

“Hoshin kanri and the philosophy was introduced to me by a colleague. He

realized that I tried to organize the company in a better way and align our
actions. He had a test project running in the company and thought that this
way of working could help us in the transformation towards more collaboration
I was undertaking. It was the right time with the right people.”
“Early in my career, at Danaher, we learned about Hoshin kanri at the time

when we were looking to organize all the powerful lean tools we were using
on the manufacturing floor.
Hoshin kanri helped us elevate and create the Danaher Business System from
the Danaher Production System.”
“I am a believer that alignment equals execution… With Hoshin kanri, I

couldn’t think of a more powerful way to gain alignment and the resulting
execution.”
From an interview of Pete McCabe with Carine Vinardi
“I discovered Hoshin Kanri when we started the Joint Venture with Toyota with
Kolin plant. I found a very precise and detailed process to reach the expected
results by engaging all the company levels. The process does not come from
the top to be executed on the shopfloor.
All hierarchical levels and departments are undertaken to define the «how» at
their level. The ‘how’ becomes the ‘what’ at the level below and therefore, the
objectives to achieve… and so forth.”
From an interview of Roland Vardanega with Carine Vinardi
“I was very interested in that we could align all the interests of top management
to the teams as well as we being able to give more responsibilities to teams.”
From an interview of Benoit Martin with Carine Vinardi
8.1.3 Motivation and Sense
Being at the top of the organization, executives and particularly CEOs engage in it
because they decide to do so. Before starting, top executives must therefore be aware
that their definition and deployment of strategy may not be the most effective or
that it has something is missing. Let us note that it implies that top executives must
know their organization well and particularly that they acknowledge its limits at a
given time.
8.2 How to Support the Change 67
Besides engaging in Hoshin kanri, it will be necessary for top executives to

see their teams on the shopfloor regularly and at various levels of management
and value chain by asking questions without judgment, and noting their under-
standing, contributions, difficulties, and the conditions for success and factors of
failure. Furthermore, this requires genuine humility and a great ability to listen.
The factual awareness of top executives is necessary but is not sufficient. As for
any approach toward sustainable change, emotional awareness is also needed. As
we will see in Sect. 8.2, only by combining the two points will we be able to have
an effective launch.
Motivation is different from one top executive to another, particularly at the begin-
ning. The interviewees often mention a need for alignment and effectiveness. From
experience—without admitting to it—some will throw themselves in, headfirst, with
an “I also practice” attitude.
In any case, motivation needs to be defined and strengthened along with top
executives’ commitment to the approach and thus become more personal. Indeed,
when it is time to change the ways of thinking (spirit) and behaviors (action) to
create new habits, everything together, including the motivation (heart), will need to
be aligned to avoid cognitive dissonance, which will not stand the test of time.
In the next chapter, I will explain the steps of culture changes required to illustrate
the specific deployment need of Hoshin kanri.
8.2 How to Support the Change
Implementing Hoshin kanri often brings a fundamental change in (strategic) culture

within organizations. This change is to be defined, understood, and supported. For
the definition, the main components of change are as follows:
● Purpose: why
● Action: what
● Direction: where
● Way or “choreography”: how
● Resources and connection: with whom
● Scale effect: how much
● Capacity: limitations in change management
● Development: training
● Flexibility: ability to adapt.
Remember that the more companies clarify and work on these points, the
more they will be empowered to change. These companies are generally found
in the 1st quartile regarding profitability (Michels and Murphys 2021).
The need to change is the first step, and we will see how it works. All the steps
for culture change are more or less detailed according to experts, but four key steps
are commonly found (Vinardi 2019):
● Step no 1—Double awareness, factual and emotional:

– The factual part is awareness of the facts (components of change listed above),
and it is necessary to understand the current culture before changing it.
– The emotional part is the emotional trigger needed to get in motion. This can
vary with time.
● Step no 2—Change of behavior and way of thinking:
Sometimes the way of thinking will need to change first, and other times it is
behavior first. Specialists on the subject agree that the order can vary according
to subjects and cultures.
Sometimes we need to do to be convinced that things are going in the right
direction. Other times, we need to be convinced before launching out into action.
● Step no 3—Creation of new practices:

It is about repeating new behaviors to bring about new practices.
Rigor and discipline will be needed to repeat new behaviors every day before they
become practices. This is why personal motivation is necessary to have the energy
to stand against time.
● Step no 4—New culture is installed:

The new practices are anchored and transferred to new recruits with determination
and time. They become natural without thinking, and it is at this point therefore,
that we can talk about a new culture. Step no 4 is not an end in itself because a
new cycle can start again with step no 1.
In this cycle of cultural development, there are three critical moments:

● Starting at step no 1, if awareness is not both factual and emotional, the
main risk is starting with some changes but without real motivation and
quickly dying out.
● In step no 2, some gains, however small, must quickly be made (commonly
known as “quick wins”). For motivation, it is indeed essential to collect any
first results of change quickly. The successful transition must look for first
quick wins so that “success breeds success,” as the famous saying goes.
● The transition between steps no 2 and no 3 is also critical: the required
repetition phase to create behavior cannot be completed without clear moti-
vation and alignment between the motivation, the way of thinking, and the
behavior. Indeed, we must align our way of thinking (what we think), our
behavior (what we do), and our emotions (what we feel). This is to avoid
cognitive dissonance. Just as for music and sports training, motivation is
8.2 How to Support the Change 69
enough to accept “difficulty and even pain” brought about by discipline and
rigor.
What were the first gains or positive signs of the top executives who were
interviewed?
“After the first year, better discussions on targets and better alignment.”
“We did our annual CEO survey of all employees; two of the questions were
do you know your business’s strategy and does your business have the right
strategy... we scored the highest in the division. The only thing that was different
was Hoshin kanri deployment.”
“Teams are much more motivated when they can propose and understand how
they contribute to the strategy. They become much more committed.”
“The first budget exercise after Hoshin kanri first implementation, we reached
the expected productivity. Indeed, the e160 millions of savings that we agreed
at top level were connected to the e160 millions of possible savings with
concrete actions at all levels from the frontlines.”
“Better sharing and better understanding of the vision from the first year.”
From an interview of Aurélien Levallet with Carine Vinardi
“Quickly, Hoshin kanri allowed to explain and follow strategic objectives

and actions easily.”
From an interview of Frédéric Petrus with Carine Vinardi
From step no 1, the awareness also leads us to understand the teams’ competencies.
By looking at Fig. 8.1 again, we can incorporate skill acquisition into the change:
+
FACTS MOTIVATION
1. AWARENESS
4. NATURAL
NEW THINKING 2. THINKING
& BEHAVIOR
CULTURE
3. HABITS 2. BEHAVIOR
Fig. 8.1 Key steps to implementing change (Vinardi 2013)
● Step no 1 is about realizing the change from “unconsciously not competent” to

“consciously not competent”.
● Then, the gains in knowledge and experience lead to the “consciously competent”
step 3.
● Step no 4 is where we become “unconsciously competent” since we are no longer
aware of our skill because it is practiced naturally.
The critical point is when we stop learning and quickly become “unconsciously
not competent” again, returning to the need for change in step no 1.
Similarly to putting in place a new culture, new skills are acquired by realizing
the need to have them. A company or more simply, a consciously qualified team at
a given time or on a given subject, can become unconsciously not competent.
This happens particularly if it is unaware that its environment has changed or that
the previously acquired skills need to change. To avoid this problem, we need to
understand our environment correctly, carry out competitor watch, and benchmark5
what others do.
Figure 8.2 shows the steps of change with the steps of skills development.
Lastly, just as it is vital to properly grasp the steps of change for those who
will decide and conduct it, it is equally important for those who support leaders
and top executives.

8.3 Who Can Support the Change 71
UNCONCIOUSLY NOT COMPETENT CONCIOUSLY NOT COMPETENT
1. AWARENESS
FACTS & EMOTIONS
4. NATURAL
UNCONCIOUSLY
NEW THINKING 2. THINKING
COMPETENT
& BEHAVIOR
CULTURE
CONCIOUSLY (NOT)
COMPETENT
CONCIOUSLY 3. HABITS 2. BEHAVIOR

COMPETENT
Fig. 8.2 Connection between awareness of skills and the key steps for change (Vinardi 2013)
8.3 Who Can Support the Change
Tried-and-tested expertise is often needed to help top executives and leaders of an

organization with Hoshin kanri and the progress of its various steps.
This help can be in the form of the top executive themselves if they have the
experience, but generally, additional resources (which are often functional) are
required. To be considered real support, they need to allocate at least 30%, but
preferably 50% of their time in this role.
When the company already has trained expertise, this support can be done in-
house. Otherwise, support can be external.
“Additional support was necessary to help everybody: me and my team. It was

difficult to learn and implement alone.”
“Most of companies will need external help to change as their managers

and shopfloor people are bound by the traditional management paradigm.
To change mindsets, behaviors, systems, beliefs, and underlying principles,
usually requires external expertise to guide organizations toward a sustained
future state.”
The expert assistant can help with various key steps. Let us take another look at
the change cycle implemented in Hoshin kanri:
● Step no 1: the assistant helps the top executive become aware of any gaps in
practice as regards strategy with the deployment of Hoshin kanri. They can also
help to ask the right questions about motivation.
● Step no 2: this is where the assistant has a consulting role to help the top executive
get into action to involve their teams. It is also where the assistant can give
“action-training” if necessary.
Several budget cycles may be necessary when applying Hoshin kanri before
step no 2 is reached, at least two years from experience.
● Steps no 3 and no 4: the support may be lighter here because top executives have
sufficient training and practical knowledge. They will need to be encouraged
and challenged. Steps 3 and 4, therefore, call on the assistant to have a more
coaching role.
As we have just stated, the role of the assistant must change with the needs
of the top executive. Let us look in detail at the primary functions of the expert
assistant and their key components.
There are three roles the expert assistant has: coaching, mentoring, and training-
advising.
Unlike training/advising, coaching and mentoring focus on the person, not on the
subject (Serrat 2017).
Mentoring is about learning FROM whereas coaching is about learning WITH.
The mentor has to be a relative expert in the field to mentor, as training and advising
may need to be given. The coach does not have to be quite an expert in the area to
coach as there is no training and advising. (MacLennan 1995) (Fig. 8.3).
Even if coaching is fashionable, the role of the coach is not necessarily the
one to be privileged in all situations.
TRAINING & ADVISING MENTORING COACHING

The coach is not
necessarily an
expert on the
The trainer-advisor is very qualified (preferably an
EXPERTISE subject, but they
expert) on the subject they give support for.
know how to ask
the right
questions.
The trainer-
The coach listens
advisor gives The mentor gives advice and
actively and asks
advice, answers answers questions.
the right
questions, and According to the situation, they
questions to
suggests can adjust and become a coach
make the
solutions to from time to time.
DETAILS coachee think.
problems.
The trainer-
The coach does
advisor explains The mentor explains ideas and
not directly
ideas and concepts, gives tips but also asks
provide answers
concepts and questions.
to questions.
gives tips.
Fig. 8.3 Key components of the expert assistant’ role

8.3 Who Can Support the Change 73
Asking questions to raise awareness rather than just giving answers as a consultant
is something to be learned.
Moreover, it is essential to adjust the type of support to the needs of the person who
is accompanied. In situations of great stress, people often need more guidance
and direct advice than being asked questions (which is what coaching is about).
In a “stable” context, coaching is the most instructive role (MacLennan 1995).
For the deployment of Hoshin kanri, a top executive with no knowledge or
experience cannot rely exclusively on coaching, except by spending many long
years! This is likely to discourage most before even starting. Neither is it applicable
to the development needs of organizations.
About mentoring and coaching, the two words are used together more often, so
a person who is a “mentor coach” would have the best results. Indeed, for some
authors, a good coach will also be a mentor, and a good mentor will coach too, as
appropriate to the situation and the relationship. (Serrat 2017).
This is why steps no 1 and no 2 of change support call for training and advising
by the expert assistant. The transition at the end of the mentoring step no 2 settles
with steps no 3 and no 4, where the role is mainly coaching.
The following figure summarizes this progression (Fig. 8.4).
When resources are given to implement strategic actions, it is advisable to
consider their autonomy and therefore, their skill in coordinating action plans. This
is fundamental for gauging the support to be given and the kind of expert assistance
needed.
From experience, this is often a very delicate point because the higher the
level of the leader, the less likely they are to transparently share with their peers
their lack of competence on subjects.
TRAINING-ADVISING MENTORING COACHING
INPUTS FROM THE

COACH,
MENTOR,
TRAINER/ADVISOR
INPUTS FROM THE
COACHEE,
MENTEE,
TRAINEE/ADVISED
Fig. 8.4 Different mindsets from trainer to coach

References
C. Vinardi, Le Lean: Atouts, Impacts et Limites (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013)

D. Michels, K. Murphys, Votre entreprise est-elle bonne pour gérer le changement?. (Harvard
Business Review, Oct–Nov 2021), p. 98
N. MacLennan, Coaching and Mentoring (1st ed.). (Routledge, 1995). https://doi.org/10.4324/978
1315260051
O. Serrat, Coaching and mentoring, in Knowledge Solutions. (Springer, Singapore, 2017). https://
doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-0983-9_101
C. Vinardi, Ph.D. Thesis on Industrial Engineering, Les défis du Lean à l’ère de la mondialisation
et de l’industrie 4.0 (Université de Technologie, 2019).
Chapter 9
Key Documents
Abstract According to a company’s size and organization, two or three main docu-
ments are needed. These are simple but essential to support the deployment. The first
one connects strategic objectives to strategic actions. The second one formalizes how
to execute and learn from strategic action plans. And the optional third one is used
to record actual and expected results. This chapter describes the content and use of
each document in detail.
Hoshin kanri does not require any specific documents but follows the same principles
as Lean:
● Use an A3 one-page report 1 as a summary of key points, shareable on a single
page. The page can be made and viewed on a computer or printer as a poster.
All the documents in the following chapters must be shareable as a single printed
page.
● Have simple visual management with an easy color code to understand the status
immediately: for example, red to draw attention to an unexpected gap, green for
compliance, and orange for a particular drift that needs to be monitored.
However, with the use of the approach by consulting firms over the years, several
key documents have emerged and can be helpful. The masterplan (strategic action
plan) addressed above will be further detailed in this chapter. Another example is the
X-matrix, which we will now describe.
9.1 From Strategic Objectives to Strategic Actions
After the vision is defined, the first stage of Hoshin kanri is about going from the
vision to the definition of annual actions with corresponding indicators and resources.
This is known as an objectives contract. It is a linear table showing points in a
simple way. Let us take an example with one part of the vision:

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_9
76 9 Key Documents
Table 9.1 Example of an objectives contract

Objectives Contract: …….. Owner: ………….
Part 1 of the Strategic Annual Annual KPI of the Resources
vision within objective strategic strategic action and
5 years within 5 years objective action timeframe
= what we = what we = what we = how we = the gap to = the
want to want to reach want to will go about be filled by resources
become in terms of achieve in the it, with what the action and needed
performance coming year concrete for when
(contribution action
to the
objective
within
X years)
To be the To reach To reach Y To launch To go from 0 Pilot: John
European revenue of sales (at least product A on product A on Co-pilot: Paul
leader in terms ex m in 20% of x) 10 markets the 10 Support:
of sales within 5 years ex m in 1 year targeted George &
5 years markets to Z Ringo
in September
20BC
It should be noted that an alternative multi-annual version, using the same

example, would be:
This format is simple and prints easily. Note that if a part of the vision has several
strategic objectives or that a strategic objective has several actions, just separate the
line into several other corresponding ones.
However, the same strategic objective may answer several parts of the vision, or
a strategic action may contribute to several strategic objectives. In those cases, the
line needs to be duplicated to keep the reading linear.
Therefore, one of the constraints of the linear version is that an item of the vision
is not necessarily related to a strategic objective and an action. In this case, reading
is less straightforward.
Some consulting firms, particularly American ones, use a new document called
the X-matrix to get around this constraint. It should be noted that this document is
not included in the approach that was started in Japan and taken up by Toyota.
The X-matrix shows the connections between items with a dot ●.
There is an alternative with a filled dot ● for direct or primary links and an empty
dot ◯ for secondary links (that are less important or indirect).
The X-matrix is also called the “CEO Matrix” (Bastos and Sharman 2019). It is
often used at different management levels: level 1 for the CEO and the executive
committee, level 2 for the level below, etc.
The figure below illustrates the example of Table 9.1 in the form of an X-matrix.
The example is simple, with one strategic objective for one strategic action. Its format
is a summary A3 one-page report,2 just like that of Table 9.1 and the other formats
below. The illustration clearly shows its structure (Fig. 9.1) (Table 9.2).

9.1 From Strategic Objectives to Strategic Actions 77
Fig. 9.1 Simplified example of an X-matrix based on Table 9.1
Table 9.2 Example of a multi-annual objectives contract

Objectives Contract: …… Owner: ………………
Part 1 of the Strategic Annual Annual KPI of the Resources
vision within objective strategic strategic action and
5 years within 5 years objective action timeframe
within 5 years
= what we = what we = how we = how we = the gap to = the
want to want to reach will go about will go about be filled by resources
become in terms of it, with what it this in the the action and needed
performance concrete coming year for when
action
To be the To reach To launch To launch To go from 0 Pilot: John
European revenue of product A on product A on product A on Co-pilot: Paul
leader in terms ex m in 50 markets 10 markets the 10 Support:
of sales within 5 years targeted George &
5 years markets to Z Ringo
in September
20BC
In this example, it is possible to understand how the X-matrix shows connec-

tions between strategic objectives and their corresponding actions in a simple
manner, whether an objective has several actions or whether an action affects several
objectives.
However, its reading is not as easy as the linear format, which means turning your
head (or the document) around to follow the sequence.
78 9 Key Documents
Table 9.3 Summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of the X-matrix compared to the
conventional linear format
X-matrix advantages X-matrix disadvantages
It can show multiple connections between Reading is not easy from left to right, and it
objectives, actions, indicators, and resources means turning the head around
This happens frequently It is not possible to have a complete view of how
the masterplan connects with its schedule.
However, this is possible in the linear format: it
can make sense to show and link the complete
vision to the detailed action plan, at least at the
validation stage
Here is a quick summary of the advantages and disadvantages of

the X-matrix over the linear format (Table 9.3).
9.2 From Strategic Actions to Strategic Action Plans
As we have seen in Sect. 5.2.4, the masterplan (also called “strategic action plan”)
is a summary document that describes how to carry out the actions that are “vital”
for the strategy to achieve the strategic objectives in line with the vision.
The successful implementation of the strategy has three main parts (Miller 1997):
● acceptance, where the teams understand the approach and their contributions to
it,
● execution, where the actions on the schedule are done,
● achievement, where the performance is in line with expectations.
The purpose given by top executives ensures the acceptance and the Z-deployment
presented in Sect. 6.2, ensuring that teams understand their contribution. The achieve-
ment is evaluated using the dashboard detailed in Sect. 9.3. The implementation is
precisely the purpose of the masterplan.
Strategic actions are often complex and must be broken into elementary or stand-
alone sub-actions. Since specific details are necessary for the various teams involved
to ensure execution, alignment, and focus are needed on the main items to be shared.
These are found in the masterplan.
The execution must therefore have at least the following:
● Schedule
“What sequences must I string, in what order, and speed?”
– sub-actions and their key steps,
– lengths and timescale (monthly, for example),
– milestones and expected results, if possible,
– remarks made during deployment.
9.2 From Strategic Actions to Strategic Action Plans 79
● Resources and organization

“Who do I need, regarding the number of people and skills? Do I have the right
team and the correct way of carrying out the action?”
– facilitators,
– team leaders,
– specialists or experts,
– users to be involved,
– frequency and format of meetings with the people involved.
Each action clearly shows the parts of the PDCA3 cycle:

● Plan: Definition of the initial state and a summary of the quick analysis. Definition
of the expected target and the gap to be filled. Define the steps to be undertaken.
● Do: Execution of plan compared to what was planned (early or late concerning
the schedule, together with the reasons).
● Check: Evaluation of the results obtained, correction of the plan, implementation
of corrective actions concerning the problems encountered.
● Act: Lesson learned with the new standard in place in case of success, conditions
for success, and factors of failure, a summary “if we had to do it again.”
As already mentioned, this makes a record and builds collective learning, if it is
appropriately shared and used.
When results can only be expected when the plan is finished, the four steps can
be separated: Plan, Do, Check, Act.
For some actions, the evaluation starts when the plan begins because it produces
results from the start.
In this case, there are three steps because “Do” and “Check” are combined: Plan,
Do with Check, Act.
Knowing how to break up complex actions into simpler ones is essential. Each
simpler action must be a small module or block that is as standard as possible (so
that it can be replicated). The sequence of modules and connections between them is
fundamental, just as in a relay race. That is how complex actions can be implemented
as securely and as quickly as possible (Flyvbjerg 2021).
According to different companies and organizations, other items, such as
checklist-type success conditions, can be added to verify if the success conditions
listed at the start were met when the action started. Consequently, year after year, the
chosen format will improve with the feedback of experience.
Are there different ways to represent these elements? Are there different
masterplan formats?
The masterplan has, in general, two main format types:

80 9 Key Documents
● The “multi-action” type is a document summarizing all the strategic actions of

the objectives contract and is on a single page. The example below uses the
same strategic action as the X-matrix with one action (Table 9.4).
This shows the complete schedule of all strategic actions and the moments of
possible overload or load conflict. In the lower part, you can add other action
plans undertaken by the team (continuous improvement or problem-solving). It is
often used by companies who use the table format and, therefore, a linear version of
the objectives contract.
This format will often be used with one A3 one-page report 4 per action in order
to obtain additional information to understand successes and failures during the
feedback of experience per action.
● The second type of format of the masterplan is called “single-action”. A single-
page document is made for each strategic action.
The format can be more or less detailed according to the information and additional
documents added. Table 9.5 illustrates what the format can look like based on the
same example.
Here, there are no details about the initial state and the analysis, and some orga-
nizations choose to add a summary page (A3 one-page report 5 referred previously)
to complete it.
This choice can change with time.
The second format contains more details, and it is often chosen by companies
that are beginners or use the X-matrix for the objectives contract.
Indeed, this second type cannot combine the objectives contract and the masterplan
on the same page because there are several pages per action. On the other hand, the
linear objectives contract and the “multi-action” type refer to the list of strategic
actions, and those can be combined.
In all cases, just as for the first option, a simple color code will ensure fast updating
without interpretation.
In this format type, the breakdown of actions into simpler sequences (P, D, C, or
A steps of the PDCA6 cycle) is made easier by focusing on an action. The format
type visually breaks the actions down (Fig. 9.2).
On the other hand, in the “multi-action” format type, each action must be broken
down into sequences to show the more significant steps of the schedule (Fig. 9.3).

6 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (6)
Table 9.4 Example of a multi-action masterplan
MASTERPLAN - YEAR : …… - OWNER : SYLVAIN Z
UPDATED : ……………………. RESOURCE PLANNING STATUS

QUARTER 1 QUARTER 2 QUARTER 3 QUARTER 4
INITIAL
TITLE FOR ACTIONS TARGET TO ACHIEVE LEADER CO PILOT RESOURCE PLANNING COMMENTS
MILESTONES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
In line today but delay to

Joseph V ► P : end Feb 28th availability of expected delay be exepected with Italy
► DC : end April DDDDDD
for 4 main 3Oth PPPP A AA resources in for Italy due who requested to
CCCCCC line with needs to problem X postpone implementation
From 0 to ZZZZZ countries ► A : May 15th of 1 month.
Launch product A
product A sold on the
1 on 10 targeted Sylvain Z
10 market tarketed Marc E
market. ► P : end June 30th
for September 20BC. for 6 ► DC : end Nov DDDDDDDDDD
other 20th PPPP AA
CCCCCCCCCC
► A : Dec 15th
countries
2
9.2 From Strategic Actions to Strategic Action Plans
ON TIME SLIGHT DELAY DELAY TREND :

and/or and/or
P = preparation of DC = Execution of ACT : Lessons
and/or : deterioration
LEGEND PDCA execution with masterplan, results learned, definition of
ON LINE WITH RESULTS SLIGHTLY RESULTS BELOW : improvement diagnostic, masterplan checking and correction new standard(s) and
EXPECTATIONS BELOW EXPECTATIONS EXPECTATIONS : stable design information & with action plan if gaps possible transfer
training ...
81
82
Table 9.5 Example of having one masterplan per action

MASTERPLAN - YEAR…… - OWNER : Sylvain Z
Target to improve : From 0 to ZZZZZ Revision date : GENERAL STATUS
Title for action : Launch product A on 10 targeted
products A sold on the 10 markets
market.
targeted for September 20BC.
P : Pl a n (defini tion of a ction, tra i ni ng, i nforma tion) On time today but delay to
Initial DC : Do & Check (Execution, moni tori ng a nd probl em s ol vi ng) be expected.
Intermediary actions Leader
milestones A : Act (End of execution, l ea rni ng, new s ta nda rd)
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec COMMENTS
Launch product A on 4 main European Feb 28th P P
1 month delay for the
market : Joseph V April 30th DC DC DC
France, Spain, Italy, Germany delivery to plan in April.
May 15th A A
June 30th P P
Transfer the experience of
Launch product 4 on other 6 markets Marc E Nov 20th DC DC DC DC DC launching on 4 main markets
Dec 15th A
What if to do it again? What mistakes to avoid and how? What conditions of success to duplicate? New rules (standards) to implement? Possible extension?...
9 Key Documents
9.2 From Strategic Actions to Strategic Action Plans 83
Kick off
1
closing
2
3
Fig. 9.2 Sequence with milestones from kick-off to closing
Kick off Closing Kick off
1 2 3
Kick off Closing Kick off
1 2 3 1
Closing
2
3
Kick Off
1
Closing
2
3
Fig. 9.3 How to define the final sequence from kick-off to closing, in a single line
Here is a quick summary of the advantages and disadvantages of

a “multi-action” over a “single-action” masterplan (Table 9.6).
Table 9.6 Summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of a “multi-action” compared to a
“single-action” masterplan
Advantages of the multi-action masterplan Disadvantages of the multi-action masterplan
Shows load conflicts because the main actions Needs to have one page per action to show
and their schedule are on the same document extra details, whereas the “single-action”
format supports it
Combines the action plan with the objectives Needs to understand how actions break down
contract in the linear format into simpler sequences to understand and
include key milestones
84 9 Key Documents
Whatever the format type, the masterplan is fundamental to track the execution
of actions. Its format must also be simple and easy to update.
It is often omitted, as certain organizations make the error of bypassing the
objectives contract and instead go straight to the bowling chart, which we will
detail in Sect. 9.3 below, thinking that the “execution will follow” or that “you
just need to carry out the plan.” Unfortunately, this is an expression I have heard all
too often from CEOs who do not have operational experience.
9.3 Bowling Chart
Bowling charts are used to track that expected results are reached and at the
right time by comparing them with the initial results (the reference) and, if possible,
the previous year’s results to show the trend.
It is necessary to properly coordinate the expected results with the deployment
of the action plan schedule (to anticipate the results of an action, for example).
Visual management with a simple color code quickly displays any gaps in red
and results that comply with expectations in green (Table 9.7).
Here are a few remarks and some advice:
● The name “Bowling chart” refers to the scoreboards used in bowling rooms.
These have a linear presentation to follow the games and a simple color code.
● Some organizations do not use a consolidated bowling chart on a single
document because they prefer to track performance indicators directly with
the masterplan. This choice is recommended when people apply Hoshin
kanri to ensure that the masterplan is the main document and that the plan
is executed correctly. The bowling chart as a “single document” is therefore
not mandatory as of the first year of deployment.
● When an organization uses a linear format type for the objectives contract,
a multi-action masterplan, and a linear bowling chart, they have all the
information on the same page, useful for poster displays, without adding
any other document. This solution is often chosen when teams are co-located
(i.e., in the same place) and sharing a similar physical location; therefore,
they can use a poster or a single large page containing everything.
● Bowling charts can be supplemented or substituted for other charts. It
all is a choice of culture and maturity. The essence is once again to have
a simple visual representation to track if the actions generate the expected
results. This naturally leads us to explain how to use these documents for
coordination.
It should be noted that the documents and, in particular, the bowling charts have a
purpose only if leaders and top executives go to the shopfloor to ensure that the
data is relevant and transparent and understand how to help when gaps occur.
Table 9.7 Example of a bowling chart
9.3 Bowling Chart
TEAM….. | STRATEGIC BOWLING CHART - YEAR……….. - OWNER : Sylvain Z
Indicator Owner Frequency of VALEUR PLANNING STATUS FOR

(connected to target to achieve) (lead) monitoring INDICATEUR JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUI JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC MASTERPLAN
ACTUAL 0 0
Number of product A launched resource OK
Sylvain Z monthly TARGET 0 0 300 700 700 1000 1200 1500 2000 2200 2300 ZZZZZ
on 10 targeted markets. planning OK
YEAR -1 0 0 0
ACTUAL
TARGET
YEAR -1
ACTUAL
TARGET
YEAR -1
ACTUAL
TARGET
YEAR -1
ACTUAL
TARGET
YEAR -1
ACTUAL
TARGET
YEAR -1
85
86 9 Key Documents
We can comfortably manage people using dashboards, but without going to

the shopfloor, we will always need more information systems and control
mechanisms to confirm our understanding of the situation. (Gomez 2019).
We will therefore look at how to coordinate effectively, from the defined vision
to the execution.
References
A. Bastos, C. Sharman, Strat to action, the KAIZEN™ method to turn strategy into action, 1st ed.
(MCgraw Hill, 2019)
B. Flyvbjerg, Four Ways to Scale up: Smart, Dumb, Forced, and Fumbled, Saïd Business School
Working Papers. (University of Oxford, 2021), https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3760631
P.Y. Gomez, Le travail invisible: enquête sur une disparition, réédition (Desclée de Brouwer Editions,
2019)
S. Miller, Implementing strategic decisions: four key factors. Organ Stud. 18(4), 577–602 (1997).
https://doi.org/10.1177/017084069701800402
Chapter 10
Facilitation
Abstract Hoshin kanri cannot be driven or deployed by one leader alone. It is

achieved by teamwork. Therefore, this chapter covers how to start from scratch and
facilitate workshops or Action Work Outs, to convert the mission into a strategic
action plan (masterplan). Once the masterplans are defined, the chapter describes
the management routines to be implemented and how to consistently organize other
management routines, including prioritizing actions and problems as they occur. The
last part addresses how to reward results and risk-taking.
10.1 Defining Strategic Action Plans Through Action Work

Out
There are several things to be defined. Assuming we start from scratch, i.e., defining
the vision we do not have yet. This is the most complete and extreme case. The
periods differ according to the different maturity and experience of the leaders.
● Formalization and consolidation of the feedback of experience
As we have seen, before defining the vision, the feedback of experience must be
noted and recorded, to take account the current (initial) situation, to determine the
gap to be filled, and to learn the lessons from past experience.
The feedback of experience is formalized from the shopfloor up. It is shared
quickly and briefly by focusing only on the key points, using an A3 one-page report.1
When teams formalize their feedback of experience, they also preferably propose
new strategic period for the year to come. When several teams report to the same
leader, it needs to be consolidated. This consolidation is reported back to top
executives.
– 1 day: is needed if there is no action plan and indicators in place, since the feedback
of experience is naturally subjective because there is no connection between results
and the actions undertaken. In this case, the feedback of experience can take more
time because it is more difficult to get a consensus from subjective information.

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_10
88 10 Facilitation
– 2 h to half day: if action plans are formalized to enough for implementation, then
the feedback of experience is established, so consolidation is therefore largely
facilitated. In this case, the feedback of experience is done faster. If the company
is large (> = 5 management levels between its chief executive officer and the most
operational level) and has a matrix organization, the consolidation can take time
even if action plans are formalized.
Preferably, allocate between half to one and a half days to share successes and
failures, and the propositions for strategic objectives, which will feed into the next
action plans. It is never a waste of time and acknowledges the teams.
● Definitions of the vision and the strategic objectives
If the mission of the company is not formalized, half day can be added for this
subject alone. Otherwise, the first stage of coordination is the definition or update of
the vision and the corresponding multi-annual strategic objectives. Include:
– 1 day: for the definition of proper coordination of this stage with the people
involved (i.e., company management), the very first time.
– Half day: for updates, if the vision and strategic objectives are already formalized
and it concerns only an update.
● Definitions of strategic actions and the corresponding tracking indicators

Once the feedback of experience is shared and the propositions of the teams have
been analyzed, define the first version of the objectives and corresponding strategic
actions to match the propositions of the teams.
It is important to talk about a “first version” because top executives must assign
themselves the communication of the framework to the leaders before starting catch-
ball (“Nemawashi” which we previously described) and to validate the final version
later.
– 1 day: the first time it will be necessary to hold a training course to properly define
and differentiate strategic objectives from non-strategic objectives, and similarly
breakthroughs from continuous improvement.
– Half day: a few hours are needed to make first propositions when leaders have
acquired the experience.
How are the previously detailed stages facilitated effectively?
Coordination is effective when it satisfies all the people involved in the least
amount of time. Therefore, it is important for teamwork to be organized as Action
Work Out.2

10.2 Strategic Reviews 89
Instead of everyone working on their own and having a virtual meeting to touch-
base, each progressing sequentially for several weeks, the people involved prepare
their input data and meet in the same physical location, with the same agenda and the
same objective. The advantage of this work method is to make discussions converge
by deciding quickly.
An external facilitator (outside the top executive level) will often be needed.
That is the role of the expert assistant described previously in Sect. 8.3, who will
take care to prepare and choose the best coordination method and will ensure the
delivery of the objective.
Between one to three days must be set aside by top executives every year.
The input is the feedback of experience of the teams and their propositions
(from the shopfloor up). The output (i.e., the deliverables) is the updated
mission and vision, the feedback of experience summary as well as the first
strategic objectives and corresponding strategic actions. It is can also be called
the annual strategic review.
● Validation of the objectives and annual strategic actions with a plan that can
be put into action
A few weeks are necessary to set up catch-ball (“Nemawashi”) between the various
teams in the organization, according to its size.
Once the action plans are defined each at their right level, the last review is made
by top executives of the company to make sure that everything makes sense.
From the definition of the mission up to the validation of all the details, the time
needed is in general a full quarter (the last of the year if the organization has a fiscal
year starting in January). This was already shown in Fig. 5.7 (with the implementation
timetable for a fiscal year running from January to December) in Sect. 5.3.
In general, it is also budget preparation time, which is consistent because the
defined action plans will be needed.
Once the strategic action plans are defined, it must be remembered that they will
not coordinate or manage themselves, so top executives must allocate time for
coordination and acknowledge the teams for spending time on it.
With that aim, it is necessary to have a review or strategic meeting.
10.2 Strategic Reviews
Several times before, we have referred to the importance of careful execution in the
success of strategy. Careful execution means the masterplan is defined simply and
clearly beforehand, at the right level of the organization, and not just to define the
objectives.
90 10 Facilitation
10.2.1 Content, Frequency, and Problem-Solving
In order to ensure effective execution, the strategic action plans must be regularly
reviewed in detail. Ask:
● Do the actions work as expected?
● Do the actions require corrections or adjustments?
– Have problems appeared and need to be solved?
– Has the context changed?
● Are the expected results achieved when the actions are done?
The focus is therefore, on the status of the actions, on production of results and the
environment of the teams: does the context require an action to be changed?
The two main documents used for coordination are the masterplan and the corre-
sponding bowling chart when this is a separate document. It will be also necessary
to share problem-solving carried out if problems arise (A3 one-page report 3 ).
The teams involved report their progress to the leaders who are there to
understand if the teams need assistance and how to help them.
The objective of the monthly review is not therefore, “to read the meters,” i.e.,
just to read the performance indicators but rather to understand and answer the needs
of the teams.
– The frequency for the best coordination is monthly. Indeed, for strategic actions,
actions involve transverse multidisciplinary teams, and those actions can take
time.
In terms of duration, days and weeks are therefore not sufficient because they are
too short to give teams the time to act. On the other hand, the quarterly frequency is
too long, a frequency every two months can be considered.
– The length of coordination meetings will therefore be around 30 min to one hour
for shopfloor teams and can be half a day to one day at the executive level.
Indeed, the closer the teams are to the shopfloor, the less they have strategic
actions to deploy. Sometimes they do not have any at all. In particular, breakthroughs
do not concern every operational team every year.
On the other hand, the more teams have a leading role, the more they must
spend time to ensure deployment in their own scope.

STRATEGIC DAILY
MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT
Monthly Hourly or Daily or Weekly

FRONT LINE LEADERS 30 min to 1 H 5 min to 30 min
Monthly Daily or Weekly or Monthly

1 H to ½ day 30 min to ½ day
Monthly or
bimonthly CONTINUOUS Weekly or
Monthly
1/ 2day IMPROVEMENT ½ day
- 1 day
- 1 day
TOP LEADERS action plans can address
both
Fig. 10.1 Frequency of management routines for strategic and daily coordination
– Continuous improvement can be included in strategic or daily reviews and

coordination. They can be included in the strategic coordination when the contin-
uous improvement actions are transverse and they generate large performance
gains, particularly by scale effect. Alternatively, when continuous improvement
actions are local or are within a team, they are included in daily coordination
(Fig. 10.1).
As we have seen, Hoshin kanri involves information sharing at the monthly

strategic coordination and at least once a year at the annual meeting. This sharing
will truly be fluid and constructive, only if there is trust within the company and
within teams.
We also mentioned that problems might occur during the implementation of
strategic actions. It is predictable, because implementing innovating actions for an
organization destabilizes it greatly and unexpected problems can occur. There are
two types of such problems:
● Those relating to results: actions are done but do not produce the expected
results or not in the expected timeframe. In this case, corrective actions must be
implemented.
● Those relating to action plans: problems appear in the implementation of actions
and must be solved. In this case, pro-active actions must be implemented.
Figure 10.2 is a problem-solving chart for decision-making. It uses the two
main documents previously mentioned. Note that if the action plan was carried out
according to the schedule (and resources), but the results are not produced, then the
actions undertaken should then be reconsidered.
92 10 Facilitation
OK = CONTINUE
NOT OK = PROBLEM
SOLVING
PRO-ACTIVE
STATUS OK = CONTINUE
MASTERPLAN BOWLING CHART
STATUS
NOT OK = PROBLEM
SOLVING
REACTIVE
CHALLENGE ACTION PLAN IF STATUS :
Fig. 10.2 Coordination of the masterplan using a bowling chart
Apart from the strategic action plans, there are other types of action plans that
need coordinating. Concerning the continuous improvement action plan, we can use
the decision-making chart in Fig. 10.2 above.
How do we go about managing all the action plans related to the various
management rhythms?
That is the question I will address in the next chapter.
10.2.2 Consistency of Management of Strategic

and Non-Strategic Action Plans
We saw in Sect. 7.3 that the coordination of management rhythms must be done
smoothly. By taking Fig. 7.6 again, here is a reminder of these various rhythms:
● the management of daily performance,
● the management of continuous improvement, i.e., the progressive improvement
of existing standards,
● the management of innovation (breakthrough improvements), i.e., improvements
obtained by establishing new standards that are by definition completely different
to existing ones.
These rhythms include the coordination of standards, problem-solving, the imple-

mentation of the PDCA4 cycle, and the summary report on an A3 one-page
report.5
Also, remember that the daily performance management includes any problem-
solving, which may arise, which turns into action plans.
The management of continuous improvement generates action plans to implement
ideas. Problems can occur during the implementation of those improvements, and
which in turn must be solved by an additional action plan if necessary.
Lastly, the management of innovation requires masterplans (strategic action
plans), which themselves may require solving problems inherent to the implemented
actions.
All these action plans are to be managed by the same teams with the action
plans and must potentially be used together. There are improvement action plans
and action plans to solve problems. It is therefore necessary to organize the action
plans together on a common schedule to ensure that the teams have adequate capacity.
We can also imagine a hierarchical structure with a higher priority for action plans
resulting from daily problem-solving than the action plans made from the implemen-
tation of improvements. We can also attribute specific resources for improvements
to ensure our capacity to manage daily problems.
It will also be necessary to be pragmatic and define clear priorities whether in
selecting actions to be implemented or selecting problems to be solved.
● The first priority is to quickly implement what is easiest and most natural.
This to ensure motivation by getting results fast, as illustrated in Fig. 10.3.
VERY DIFFULT TO GET TRAINING, EFFICIENCY,

Requires determination & time
DIFFICULT TO GET TRAINING, EFFICIENCY

Requires determination & time
EASY TO GET ORGANIZATION

Important for motivation
NATURAL TO GET ORGANIZATION

Important for motivation
Fig. 10.3 Natural representation of priorities (Harry 1994)

94 10 Facilitation
Fig. 10.4 Priority matrix
EASY 15 22 51
IMPLEMENTATION
37 44 73
DIFFICULT 69 88 96
WEAK STRONG
EXPECTED IMPACT
● The second priority is to combine ease of implementation with its expected

impact. Indeed, the preceding illustration is over simplified, and often impacts
cannot be compared to simply picking fruit. Therefore, the expected impacts
are dealt by order of importance and combined by ease of implementation (ease
relates to skill, energy, and investment, for example). A “priority matrix” is then
obtained. The priority actions are those located in the heart (n°1, 2, 3, and 4) as
seen in Fig. 10.4.
In addition to setting priorities, we have addressed the issue of capacity. It is not
advisable to implement any number of actions, which the team cannot handle.
The capacity of teams to solve problems is linked to daily performance manage-
ment, because it depends on the nature of problems and the maturity of teams. The
same applies to the implementation of continuous improvements.
It is a significant for top executives. They can help their organization to increase
capacity and speed to solve problems by adding or developing skills for example.
Apart from the ideas of breakthrough improvement, which are related to strategy,
each team is advised to have an up-to-date scheduled list with problems and contin-
uous improvement ideas. In this manner, the potential is known and updated and
priorities can then be set clearly for each team.
The last point to highlight concerns coordination. To track actions, a common
schedule can be considered for the three management rhythms. Workload conflicts
can then be quickly identified and arbitrated. This is one of the suggestions made on
one of the formats of the masterplan in Sect. 9.2.
10.3 Rewarding Efficiency and Risk-Taking 95
As a summary, to coordinate the strategic and non-strategic action plans:

● identify the action plans according to one of the three management rhythms,
● organize and schedule a prioritized and up-to-date list of problems and ideas
of improvement,
● visualize everything together, if possible, on a common schedule.
The simultaneous coordination of all the action plans is crucial and if top
executives go to the shopfloor raise the right questions will enable them to see if
everything works together or not.
Going to the shopfloor with the appropriate mindset, top executives will be able to
understand and reward the risk-taking initiatives of teams via their propositions
for innovative actions.
They will also be able to see and reward the efforts to ensure the effectiveness
of action plans, and particularly the strategic action plans.
10.3 Rewarding Efficiency and Risk-Taking
“Process led to results,” said Taiichi Ohno, one of the founding fathers of the Toyota
Production System. The process referred to by Taiichi Ohno is the whole set of tasks
with its organization and management mode.
If top executives want results, they need to be focused on the process by which
to obtain them. That is why top executives must follow the execution of the action
plans and bring their support when necessary. They must seek to understand the
implemented process and it delivers what is expected.
Regarding strategic actions, it is a question of innovation, breakthrough, and,
therefore, of new processes. The teams that propose them must be creative with the
suggested processes and ambitious with the expected results.
Top executives will therefore have to make sure of the innovative content and
push their teams to make propositions that are aligned with it.
With regard to results, if the expected objective is 100 in four years, then logically
one-fourth is expected for the first year.
Yet, often we are challenged a little more on the result in the first year, aiming for
one-third for example. If the chosen breakthrough action is the right one, it should
deliver quickly. From experience, it is not always the case but at least it makes it
possible to fix an ambition, at the right level.
How should those who agree to be challenged by executing new ideas and
obtaining ambitious result, be rewarded?
96 10 Facilitation
The first way of rewarding leaders and teams is by committing time with them on
their shopfloor and by acknowledging propositions, the definition, and execution
of the masterplan and their sharing of what was learned to replicate success and
avoid making the same errors. Committing time, therefore, means being invested in
strategic reviews.
The second way is by acknowledging the results obtained during the annual
appraisals of employee. When it is time for a leader to assess the results obtained
by a team and the contribution of individuals, it is important to understand the risks
taken and to reward the latter differently for an easier and conventional proposition.
This last point is essential because if risks are not considered differently, then who
will agree to take them?
Practically, that is also in the acknowledgement of efforts and results. For example,
goals are said to be “achieved” when:
● 75–80% of the results are obtained by applying strategic actions (breakthroughs).
● 100% of the results are obtained by conventional improvements.
In acknowledging efforts and risks taken, the organization learns how to
implement Hoshin kanri , year after year.
Reference
M.J. Harry, The Vision of Six Sigma: a Roadmap for Breakthrough. (Sigma Publishing Company,
Phoenix, 1994)
Chapter 11
Progress and Sustainability
Abstract This last chapter considers the importance of cultural dimensions: what
needs to be considered in deployment, especially the national aspect of culture. The
chapter then covers cascading from local to global deployment, followed by the
kind of leadership necessary to make it successful. Lastly, the chapter ends with a
summary of conditions for success and factors of failure based on academic works,
experience, and interview contributions by our top leaders.
11.1 How to Take into Account Cultural Dimension
Even if most principles of Hoshin kanri are universal, as they are for Lean,1 some
parts of it must be adjusted to the company’s culture, its leaders, and its employees
to evolve (Vinardi 2013), (Alic et al. 2016).
Section 8.2 refers to the main steps in engaging culture to change. As we have
also seen, discipline and sustained efforts are needed to change culture, as the
experience of Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) confirms.
“Culture transformations often fails because improvement is not approached as

a strategy. Instead, improvement activities happen in a disconnected, random
way, only in certain areas within the company. Improvements are not aligned
with the strategy to meet the customer’s requirements.
It is also difficult to change the prevailing culture because it feeds on itself.
Change for the better doesn’t happen overnight, as it takes discipline and
sacrifice to change the culture that has been formed over many years. When
this happens, national and regional cultural variations are transcended.”

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_11
98 11 Progress and Sustainability
“Culture eats strategy for breakfast.” Peter Drucker would have said.
It is not a question of opposing strategy and culture but of considering the impor-
tance of the cultural aspect, considering existing culture when defining a strategy,
and then modifying the culture when the strategy requires it.
Understanding the existing culture requires an effort for top executives because
it is not about what they would like to have or to show but about what prevails
naturally. That implies making a record of the current state with the teams at various
levels, in multiple departments, activities, and different countries and regions.
Three main components of culture are to be taken into account in work (Vinardi
2019):
• national culture: relating to a country, and even a region, according to its size,
• company culture: relating to its public or private vocation, the type of share-
holders, its age, and its size,
• professional culture: relating to the activity such as working in production, within
a commercial entity, or in a research center; or the nature of the activity such as
being an operator, employee, top executive, technician, engineer, or commercial.
The culture of the nation or the region, in general, affects more than the other
two. Indeed, most people are born and live in the same country, producing a lasting
effect on them, and are integrated into their national culture from a young age.
The effect of professional culture follows, and lastly, that of the company culture.
(Vinardi 2016).
Some precautions are necessary when talking about culture, as there are general
trends, so nothing is absolute. It is relevant for the majority and the average
individual.
Concerning national culture, if someone has dual nationality parents, or has lived
and immersed themselves in a different country to their country of origin for a long
time, or if they are curious about learning several languages, all this can make it
possible to have a broader openness and to mitigate the influences of having just one
culture of origin.
As for professional culture, for example, an R&D engineer who has done the same
job for thirty years will be strongly shaped by the profession’s codes, contrary to an
engineer who regularly changes different jobs (R&D, production, purchasing, sales,
etc.).
Lastly, corporate culture is much less impactful in start-ups or young companies
of a few tens of years than in those, though increasingly rare, which have more than
a hundred years.
11.1 How to Take into Account Cultural Dimension 99
So, what cultural elements should be considered when implementing Lean2 or

Hoshin kanri?
Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) gives us his experience regarding the culture
intake of Lean:
“Training Lean only can get caught up in cultural differences, for instance,
in certain communities, it is seen as rude to expose the flaws and problems
in processes as this is embarrassing to the people implicated. Visual manage-
ment’s transparency can consequently be counterproductive without an aware-
ness of the broader cultural influence. However, employees can overcome their
cultural objections when they gain a better understanding of the concepts and
its connection with the tools and the holistic improvement system.”
First of all, let us note that Toyota, at the beginning of the formalization of Lean,3
is an ethnocentric company. That means that people with key decisional roles have
the same nationality as the company. The influence of national culture is therefore
strong within ethnocentric companies (Vinardi 2019), and in the case of Toyota, the
impact of Japan is significant. Even if it is a given that to deploy Lean,4 it is not
necessary to be Japanese. Nevertheless, certain aspects require more energy to be
implemented for the non-Japanese (Oudhuis et al. 2013), (Sanches Frutuoso Silva
2013).
Similarly, I propose matching the necessary behaviors in the implementation of
Hoshin kanri to the corresponding cultural dimension (Table 11.1).
Some behaviors trigger different cultural dimensions (implementation of rules,
for example). We will see how to manage this situation later. Let us first match the
cultural dimension previously mentioned to a few nations to illustrate this (Table
11.2).

Table 11.1 Key behaviors for Hoshin kanri and their corresponding cultural dimensions
Necessary elements Corresponding cultural dimensions
Creativity, the capacity to think outside the box Low or flexible implementation of rules. (The
and established rules to find new ideas and opposite of high implementation of rules)
solve new problems
Compliance and management of new standards High implementation of rules
to ensure the sustainability of the (The opposite of low or flexible
breakthroughs undertaken implementation of rules)
Training by practice, to integrate the key Training by practice, first
elements more easily in the feedback of (The opposite of training by theory first)
experience and correct errors quickly by
carrying out the action plan
Speed in collective mobilization, to engage Focusing on collective approach
teams in sharing experience, propositions, the (The opposite of focusing on individual
validation of objectives, and corresponding approach)
actions (Nemawashi) and to carry out the
masterplan together
Clear long-term orientation, to project a vision, Long-term orientation
to give a sustainable direction, and to confirm (The opposite of short-term orientation)
the short-term direction
Ability to hold transparent discussions between Low hierarchical authority also called low
team members and their leader, to easily power distance. (The opposite of high
express negative feedback shared during hierarchical authority or high power distance)
Nemawashi, and to make corrections during
execution
Synchronous time management because Synchronous time management also called
Hoshin kanri is deployed in parallel to other flexible time management
management rhythms (The opposite of sequential time management
or linear time management)
Risk management, which results in low Low uncertainty avoidance
uncertainty avoidance, making daring (The opposite of high uncertainty avoidance)
propositions, and taking risks during
Nemawashi
The first important observation is that dimensions 2 to 5 correspond to Lean,5

and here, with no surprise, the Japanese culture is completely aligned. As for Hoshin
kanri, it therefore works in all countries of the world. That means that lesser or
non-culturally aligned countries can achieve this. They need to be aware of their
weaknesses and spend more energy on this aspect.
Let us take a few cases to illustrate what happens when Hoshin kanri is deployed
and how to face difficulties, at least at the beginning, giving time for teams to adapt:
• Standard Application: Japan has a strong culture of rule compliance, whereas
China has the opposite tendency, with a culture of flexibility in terms of rule
implementation.

Table 11.2 Examples of national cultural dimensions for a few countries—Source C. VINARDI,
adapted (Vinardi 2016)
CULTURAL
JAPAN CHINA USA RUSSIA FRANCE GERMANY
DIMENSIONS
Flexible (low)
1 standard -- ++ - ++ + -
application
Strict (high)
2 standard ++ -- + -- - +
application
Learning by
3 ++ + ++ -- -- ++
doing first
Focus on a
4 collective ++ ++ -- ++ + -
approach
Long term
5 ++ ++ -- ++ ++ ++
orientation
Low
6 hierarchical -- -- + -- - ++
distance
Direct
7 negative -- -- - ++ ++ ++
feedback
Low
8 expression of -- -- + ++ ++ -
emotions
Flexible or
synchronous
9 -- ++ -- ++ + --
time
management
Low
1
uncertainty -- ++ ++ -- -- -
0 avoidance
LEGEND ++ fully aligned -- fully not aligned

+ somewhat aligned - somewhat not aligned
Consequence: The Chinese tend to be more comfortable in times of creation

or solving new problems than the Japanese. On the contrary, the Japanese are more
comfortable managing and upholding the new standards resulting from breakthrough
ideas.
What can be done?
– Example 1: If we are lucky to have multicultural6 teams, we can give leadership to
cultures with a flexible rule implementation during creation and problem-solving
and the opposite when upholding and managing the standards.

– Example 2: Strengthen the management and audits of standards for cultures with
a flexible rule implementation during the sustainability part.
• Training By Practice: Germany is a country with a strong culture of training by

practice first, whereas France is a country that has a strong culture of training by
theory first.
Consequence: Overall, the French are less comfortable than the Germans in
formalizing what they have learned by practical application and correcting any
actions during implementation.
What can be done?
– Example 1: If we are lucky to have multicultural 7 teams, we can give leader-
ship to strong practice-training cultures during feedback of experience and when
corrective actions must be implemented.
– Example 2: If we are lucky to have international teams, then we can use the strong
theory-training cultures after the feedback of experience and the corrective actions
to summarize what is important to be reproduced or avoided.
• Collective Culture: In the USA, society tends to be very individualistic, and

individual success is recognized more than collective success. On the other hand,
in Japan and China, individuals are preserving the balance between the group
and the community. Discussions are necessary to obtain consensus, and the time
needed to reach it is readily accepted because the collective action is stronger and
more effective once an agreement is reached.
Consequence: In the USA, it is more difficult to mobilize the collective during

Nemawashi, where teams tend to make their point of view prevail without seeking
consensus. Here, the culture of the USA also helps to go faster because consensus is
not necessarily viewed as something important.
On the other hand, during the masterplan implementation, American teams tend
to lose more time because they easily challenge the collectively defined plan. In
contrast, the Chinese and the Japanese tend to be mobilized together and will go
faster during the execution phase.
What can be done?
– Example 1: If we are lucky to have multicultural 8 teams, we can give leadership
to collective cultures during Nemawashi and the execution to encourage teams to
obtain consensus.
– Example 2: For individualistic cultures, we can give individual objectives which
contribute to the consensus, acknowledging the collective execution of the defined
plan. [Transl. note: French sentence unclear]

• Long-Term Orientation: In the USA, society tends to be focused on the short

term and the search for a rapid solution. On the other hand, the French culture, for
example, needs to be projected far in time to understand what to do in the short
term.
Consequence: The French are generally more comfortable defining long-term

vision and strategy than North Americans.
What can be done?
– Example 1: If we are lucky to have multicultural 9 teams, then we can give the
leadership to cultures with long-term orientation for the definition of the vision
and the definition of the corresponding strategic objectives, and then give back the
leadership to cultures with short-term orientation to convert long-term strategic
objectives into annual objectives and actions.
– Example 2: For cultures with short-term orientation, it can be helpful to make them
start from the short term and therefore, from an annual timeframe, for instance,
to look at a longer one, i.e., to go the opposite way, to cross propositions.
• Low hierarchical distance and direct negative feedback: In Germany, discus-

sions are facilitated by the culture of low hierarchical distance, and teams tend to
speak easily about what does not work. On the other hand, the Japanese culture
is very hierarchical, and feedback is very indirect.
Consequence: Germans find it easier to engage in Nemawashi, so feedback of

experience takes less time, particularly when sharing difficulties.
On the other hand, the Japanese tend to seek to share, to reach consensus propo-
sitions, and to avoid anyone losing face before presenting them to their leader with
the greatest respect. Problems encountered must be expressed carefully.
In an international context, with multicultural 10 teams, the time to reach consensus
can destabilize other cultures, so the feedback mode can be badly interpreted by those
with a more expressive culture or a more direct feedback mode.
What can be done?
– Example 1: We can give teams with a culture of strong hierarchical distance a
room for discussion without their leader before submitting the collective point of
view. In this case, it will be necessary that the leader asks open-ended questions
(avoiding yes and no answers) so that difficulties can be shared.
– Example 2: For cultures where negative feedback is not easily direct, it is of
course, necessary initially at least, to address what works well to put everyone at
ease and to address what does not as collectively as possible. In any case, people
are not to be put at fault. That is also true for cultures where negative feedback is
direct.

Nevertheless, when emotions are easily expressed (the opposite dimension of

point 8 of Table 11.2), it can make discussions difficult for multicultural 11 teams. It
can be interpreted as arrogance if combined with direct negative feedback, as is the
case for the French and Russians. It is advisable to explain that to the teams and give
everyone room for discussion.
• Synchronous or Flexible Time Management: In Russia and China, the manage-
ment of Hoshin kanri would quickly find its place beside other management
rhythms because it is customary to manage several sequences synchronously. It
is less true in the USA and Germany, where the tendency would be to have the
stages of Hoshin kanri sequentially (asynchronously).
Consequence: Cultures most comfortable with sequential management are likely
to be discouraged quicker at the start.
What can be done?
– Example 1: to start gradually in stages, to put everyone at ease.
– Example 2: to break up actions properly and give strong support to linear manage-
ment cultures so that they grasp all the management rhythms and consequently
also Hoshin kanri.
• Low Uncertainty Avoidance: In China and the USA, teams tend not to have
difficulty expressing unconventional or daring ideas at work, whether to solve
problems or improve themselves. In Japan, France, and Russia, where uncertainty
tends to generate discomfort, teams seek to avoid, at first, ideas that are “outside
the box.”
Consequence: As risk-taking tends to be low for cultures with high uncertainty
avoidance, they must be pushed to express themselves and think outside the box.
What can be done?
– Example 1: typical techniques such as paper storming can help to express ideas,
where people make suggestions without feeling influenced or judged by the group.
– Example 2: to allow mistakes. It is often what is lacking when teams hesitate to
take risks. For that, it should be accepted that those who make mistakes and learn
from them are supported and even rewarded instead of being punished.
– Example 3: the teams who tend to avoid uncertainty are generally able to better
identify risks. They can be used at the beginning of a project or action.
It is also interesting to note that in some cultures, the formalization and imple-
mentation of the masterplan are seen as a firm commitment. In contrast, in others, it
is just a starting point that can be rediscussed as we go along.
This is not tied to any cultural dimension in particular but several ones (namely,
standard application and risk management). Let us take some examples to illustrate
the consequence:

• In China and the USA: teams tend to give themselves the right to deviate or discuss
the masterplan after its definition.
This can require time to re-align everyone during execution.
• In France and Germany, teams tend to spend much time deciding on the masterplan
because it is a strong commitment.
Therefore, leaders must set the rules and expectations to avoid interpretation and
divergence, particularly in multicultural 12 teams.
Looking again at the cultural dimensions above for the different nations, it should
be noted that some professions can be influenced by their national culture.
For example, in production where flows can be seen, standard management and
compliance to the standard are generally more readily adopted, which helps to sustain
breakthroughs.
On the other hand, resources dictate processes. For example, in the case of trans-
actional or sales activities without physical flows (Vinardi 2013), the relational aspect
is strong and is not favorable to standards management because it is always supposed
to be custom-made. Some combination is therefore possible: in Japan and in produc-
tion, for example, compliance with standards is in general very strong, and in China,
which is very flexible on the standards application, yet in production, this dimension
is not so clear.
Similarly, in catering, where progressive training on the shopfloor is the major
part of training, it is simpler to apply training by practice, even in France!
As we have seen, corporate culture also has its influence, even if smaller, apart
from the country and professional cultures.
Let us also note the particular case of start-ups. The main cultural constituents
which characterize them are (Vinardi 2019):
• Low hierarchical distance: no formal organizational chart, a concentric organi-
zation with two or three levels maximum around the founder and leader who is
the only authority. There is a weak distinction between tasks.
• Short-term orientation and a low performance orientation: investments are
critical, and the objective is to find a market quickly.
In implementing Hoshin kanri, start-ups will have an advantage because of their
hierarchical distance and size, which favors fast and effective exchanges. On the other
hand, it will be more difficult for them to be focused on performance objectives and
to address the long term since the market is not clearly identified.
For a traditional and strongly decentralized company, it will be necessary to limit
the strategic objectives and actions to common elements which make real sense
for all departments involved.
Lastly, let us take an aspect that can influence company culture: the age of
employees when a particular age bracket is a significant proportion. Let us take
the case of Millennials, i.e., young people born after 1992–1995 and who recently
entered the job market.

Millennials are always influenced by their national culture. However, it would

seem that they shift the cursor of some company and country cultural dimensions
to which they belong, compared to their elders (Vinardi 2019), with the following
tendencies:
• More collective orientation: focus on teams and therefore on the collective,
importance of work and team training
• More flexible time management: tend to be multitasked, to do several things at
the same time, to have several jobs at the same time, and not necessarily to work
at the office but from home.
• Lower hierarchical distance: a tendency to challenge line management and to
need a more egalitarian structure.
• More short-term orientation: accustomed to the access to information and the
impact on social networks in real time, they seem to need transformations in “real
time.”
• A need for strong and direct feedback: need for a direct and honest relationship
with feedback and regular support, more than their elders in any case.
• A need for a strong sense of purpose: in a world where ecology, geopolitics,
and the economy are fragile, the search for meaning is even more critical.
Consequently, concerning Hoshin kanri, Millennials can bring many advantages:
a more collective focus, more synchronous time management, a lower hierarchical
distance, and a need for stronger feedback. They should therefore feel comfortable
with the approach overall. The need for purpose can also help to define the vision.
The main weakness to be considered is a more short-term orientation which does not
allow to define the vision and therefore the long-term direction.
The main dimensions to be considered are the application of rules, the training
style, the collective focus, the timescale orientation, the hierarchical distance,
the feedback mode, time management, and the risk-taking. It is essential to
consider cultural elements even if everything is not related to culture.
We have just addressed the importance of culture for a successful deployment

of Hoshin kanri. Other elements are to be considered, such as the progressive team
involvement, i.e., the number of teams concerned and involved.
11.2 Local Deployment and Progressing Cascading
The commitment of the teams is strongly related to how the approach is cascaded.
In the first year of implementation, top executives are recommended to allocate
time to the feedback of experience.
This does not necessarily require thorough methodological skills but relies more
on the willingness to learn. This first stage is for the teams directly involved to be
aware of the necessity to have and deploy an action plan.
11.2 Local Deployment and Progressing Cascading 107
Indeed, it is possible to separate the feedback of experience and the propositions

cascaded up from the shopfloor to top executives without deploying the strategic
action plans to the most operational levels.
Before considering the deployment process, it is necessary to look at organization
characteristics. Indeed, to move quickly and be effective, the number of hierarchical
levels must be as small as possible.
There should be no more than two levels between a director and an operator in
a factory or an operational entity. There should also be no more than two or three
levels between operational directors and the chief executive officer.
The more hierarchical levels there are, the more time information needs to flow,
and the more it can be deformed by intermediaries (Vinardi 2013). It is also what
Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute, Ltd) highlights.
“The key success factor is to shorten the distance among CEO, the shopfloor,
and customers.”
In the first year, after spending time to understand Hoshin kanri and having
integrated the feedback of experience, the top executive team of the organization will
be able to organize the deployment with its direct teams, called level 1. The mission
and the vision are formalized or updated, and the long-term and annual strategic
objectives and actions are defined. The top executive team will use the elements with
its direct teams to engage the first stage of coordination and alignment.
In the second year, the feedback of experience is expected to be better if the teams
formalize their action plans and the top executive team is ready for Z-deployment at
level 2.
For the deployment, something to be considered is the team’s skill. As we have
seen, the masterplan must be implemented at the impact point, i.e., where it
makes sense. For that, the teams must have the necessary skills, which is not always
the case. When mid-level and shopfloor leaders do not yet have sufficient skills,
top executives must take control and allocate more energy to deploying Hoshin
kanri (Masai et al. 2015).
Practically, if level 1 teams do not have the necessary skills to autonomously
ensure the implementation of the masterplan, the leader at the level above must
provide coordination or at least supervision. In the following year, the leader must
ensure the leveling up of the teams is made via an adequate training program.
• Ideally, having “one level of deployment per year” is the correct rate
because it allows each level and each leader to allocate time to appropriate
the approach before carrying out the deployment.
• At each level of deployment, the leader must consider if their team

has the skills to deploy the masterplan and to adapt their support and
coordination accordingly.
• A roadmap can help the organization and teams to assess the current state
and provide a path for the deployment (Vinardi 2019).
When no leader in the company has any experience in Hoshin kanri, it is

best to start from the top executive management and the organization’s top
executives. However, if some have experience in Hoshin kanri, they can implement
its principles locally and reap the benefits locally too.
How do leaders have to prepare to be comfortable in the deployment of Hoshin

kanri? Is the style of leadership to be taken into account?
11.3 Leadership Adaptation
Since we are talking about leadership, let us ask that question to the leaders so that
they share the difficulties they have personally encountered.
“The initial initiative was running alongside so that two management systems
coexisted. This wasted time. With the system today, a difficulty still remains
in defining the right targets with the right actions. During Covid time, we
realized that many of our targets did not need to change because they were too
blurry—that was an area of improvement.”
From an interview of Daniel Hager with Carine Vinardi
“I faced two main difficulties: the people I worked for didn’t pull for it, or
re-enforce it, and I introduced too much detail in the beginning. The people I
worked for humored me, they didn’t say don’t do it but they didn’t ask questions
about it, re-enforce it or engage in catch-ball around it... we almost had to speak
two different languages; one (Hoshin kanri) when we were together as a team
and another when we were doing higher-level business reviews and strategy
sessions. My first time through, I had way too many breakthrough priori-
ties and too many of them looked like MBO’s vs processes that we were
going to generate differentiated performance from. The administrative burden
became daunting.”
11.3 Leadership Adaptation 109
“One of the main difficulties was the rigor of applying the method when several
divisions are concerned by the same objectives but having different interests.”
“It is key to engage progressively all hierarchical levels and not all at the same
time. It is also key to have a good understanding of the concept upfront, and
an ability to make it concrete and make it live every day.”
These interviews are particularly about methods, processes, and systems for
which top executives have encountered difficulties.
Hoshin kanri requires leaders and, above all, top executives to take an interest in
the company’s processes, in the adequacy of processes and in the organization,
and in the progression of related skills. This is what Masaaki Imai (Kaizen Institute,
Ltd) stated. He has focused on orientation for the shopfloor, which we will refer to
later in this chapter.
“As long as top management is results-oriented without being process-

oriented, they will continue to fail at changing their companies for the
better.”
As we have seen, the process orientation is not the one associated to Management
by Objectives (MBO), and the first difficulty for top executives is giving up this
model.
As we have also seen, this model is widely disseminated by American management
schools everywhere in the world as “the” model.
It is therefore difficult to challenge it, especially as it is simpler to implement
and less engaging for top executives, particularly at the beginning of the strategic
process.
Hoshin kanri requires investing energy upstream, particularly during the defi-
nition of the objectives and the actions, and to invest less thereafter, in a more
targeted way.
Let us compare the energy spent in conventional MBO-type approaches with
Hoshin kanri. We have the following graph shown in Fig. 11.1a, where more energy
is needed at the beginning for Hoshin kanri but much less during execution.
Another way of illustrating energy and time investment is in Fig. 11.1b, where the
difference is shown by figurines highlighting that work is much more collaborative
with Hoshin kanri in all the stages.
(a) (b)
CLASSICAL APPROACH SUCH AS MANAGEMENT BY OBJECTIVES
Leadership
energy
HOSHIN KANRI MBO Target

&
Actions
DESIGN CASCADE EXECUTE
HOSHIN KANRI APPROACH
Time Target Target

DESIGN CASCADE EXECUTE & &
Actions Actions
Achieved
target
CO DESIGN SUPPORT
CASCADE
EXECUTION
Fig. 11.1 a Graph of MBO and Hoshin kanri and the energy spent at various stages of the strategic
approach b Comparison between MBO and Hoshin kanri of the energy spent at various stages of
the strategic approach
The definition of the objectives made by top executives does imply knowing the
shopfloor in the conventional sense, but Hoshin kanri does require this knowledge
of the shopfloor (Ahmed 2013).
Hoshin kanri will therefore require top executives to understand the shopfloor.
They must also be as interested in the objectives (“what”) as in the means of
reaching them (“how”).
Going to the shopfloor regularly means making contact with the teams, understand
their work and difficulties, and appreciate their performance fairly and how to help
them.
Of course, it is about regularly meeting customers, the manual workers, and the
employees who create value, including the suppliers. It is a significant difficulty for
top executives and leaders who often are not used to it, as Masaaki Imai (Kaizen
Institute, Ltd) points out.
“The lack of continuous improvement leadership and practicing it on the

shop is a primary barrier. Top management must initiate strategic improvement
efforts and lead the company from the shopfloor.
It is also a matter of engaging with managers who are willing to listen,
experiment and learn how to improve the customer experience.”
• Going to the shopfloor makes sense only if leaders and top executives observe,
listen, and ask questions to understand and agree to be jostled when teams
are dissatisfied.
11.4 Conditions for Success and Factors of Failure 111
• Going to the shopfloor requires accepting not knowing everything and not
having the answers to everything. In addition, instead of giving orders or advice,
top executives should ask questions to really understand. Besides, they will not
need to know everything.
• Listening, including what is not easy to hear, observing, and asking the right
questions, requires humility and being interested in people.
This is the mode of leadership that leaders and top executives need to apply the
Hoshin kanri approach.
11.4 Conditions for Success and Factors of Failure
We talked about several factors of success and factors of failure throughout the
preceding chapters. These are also listed in referenced publications and scientific
papers (Vinardi 2019).
What are the conditions for success expressed by top executives and leaders
interviewed?
“My doubt in deploying Hoshin kanri mainly came from a lack of ‘critical
mass’ in management to enforce it.”
“Leadership, teamwork and perseverance are key. Leaders must push for
root-causes, encourage “stretch” and not “shoot messengers” bearing red,
not green numbers.”
From an interview of Larry Culp with Carine Vinardi
“Keep it simple, engage in catch-ball,drive planning discipline,

hold rigorous reviews of progress, learning equally from mistakes and
successes and having a robust countermeasure culture.”
“It is key to take the time to be trained, train and explain.”

Table 11.3 below is a summary of them.

Table 11.3 Summary of the main conditions for success
112
Fields Conditions for success

Mission, ☑ The mission and vision are simple and clear. They lead to and focus on breakthrough actions done by the teams, including daily
vision, data actions
collection & ☑ The performance of the competition is known
benchmarking
☑ Decisions are based on facts and on reliable data
Objectives, ☑ There are five vital strategic objectives (max) and five strategic actions per team (max) but fewer for the operational team
strategic (shopfloor)
actions and ☑ There is consistency between ambitions, resources, and planning
corresponding
indicators ☑ The collective strategic objectives are more important than individual objectives which they drive
☑ There is consistency of objectives and actions by top executives to ensure they are aligned and teams have practical
coordination
☑ There are process and result indicators (not just financial ones)
Masterplan ☑ The masterplan adapts to the development of external and internal context and can be updated simply
(strategic ☑ The masterplan is implemented by teams that have the skills to do so
action plan)
☑ The management of the masterplans shares relevant feedback of experience and develops a learning organization
Leaders ☑ There is a maturity of leaders at all levels, including the higher company level who accept to be challenged
☑ There is a maturity of leaders and employees to track and manage daily performance, to solve problems at their level, and to
understand the operations of the organization so that it is effective
☑ There is a rigor and determination of the leaders to implement the defined breakthrough actions
(continued)
11 Progress and Sustainability
Table 11.3 (continued)
Fields Conditions for success
Lean basics ☑ There is a preliminary deployment of some Lean basics: the higher the skills of leaders at all levels of the organization in the
daily performance management, the standards visual management, and problem-solving, the more they will be able to
propose actions and challenge propositions of top executives
Lean13 does not need Hoshin kanri, but it minimizes energy spent and maximizes effectiveness
Culture and ☑ Existing cultures are considered against country, professional, and company dimensions
culture change ☑ Cultures are developed according to the four steps described: assessment, change in the way of thinking and behavior, creation
of practices, and creating a new culture
Deployment ☑ The deployment is progressive, starting with top executives who carry out the coordination of the deployment themselves,
with expert assistance if they do not have the experience
Leadership of ☑ There is an interest in processes and actions of consistency between the organization, processes, and team skills development
top executives according to their strategy
☑ There are regular visits to the shopfloor with observation, listening, and questioning to understand their employees and how
strategy is deployed
☑ The organization minimizes the hierarchical levels to be reactive and accelerate exchanges
☑ There is the integration and promotion of cultural consideration and support in the necessary change of culture

113
The quotes are unsurprisingly consistent with the summary in Table 11.3.
We will also look at the factors of failure already referred to and listed in referenced
publications and scientific papers (Vinardi 2019) (Table 11.4).
According to top executives and leaders who were interviewed, what are the
pitfalls to avoid?
“It is key not to consider Hoshin kanri as a tool and it needs to describe
reality.”
“Hoshin kanri is no substitute for talent and judgment. Do not expect it to

serve as some kind of auto-pilot. Like much in life, it requires dedication and
real work.
Don’t let a bowler (bowling chart) become a presentation aid. Bowlers without
action plans and problem-solving is pure theatre.”
“Too many breakthrough priorities, defaulting to MBOs versus break-

through priorities focused on the how, not going driving enough plan-
ning/master planning rigor and circumventing catch-ball.”
From an interview of McCabe with Carine Vinardi
“Understand and answer the team’s skepticism at the beginning of the

journey.”
“Deploy Hoshin kanri without being pushed. Understand it by yourself .

Understand the maturity of the teams and their reluctances. Don’t go too
fast.”
“For many leaders this does not suit their short-term self-interest or the
immediate interests of the shareholders they usually represent.”
Table 11.4 Summary of the main factors of failure
Mission, ☐ There is a lack of data to understand current maturity on the shopfloor, or a lack of cascade of what really happens at the shopfloor
vision, data ☐ There is no vision to support long-term prospects or a short-term vision
collection
☐ There is a lack of reflection and training: too few phases of experience sharing concerning success and failure by the teams
Masterplan ☐ There are too many objectives and too many actions. This is justified by “we don’t have the choice.” It is one of the greatest mistakes
(strategic made by top executives when they start the approach in the first year, unable to commit
action plan) ☐ The budget for human resources and materials is poorly established
☐ The approach is too complex in its format and its coordination
Leaders ☐ There is confusion between daily performance and strategic management with a lack of consistency of management rhythms
☐ There is a lack of transparency which distorts propositions and exchanges
☐ There is a lack of regular management routines to track the approach
☐ Catch-ball is not really carried out, and therefore, the approach remains mainly top-down14
Culture ☐ There is no consideration of the cultural dimension
Deployment ☐ The deployment is too fast, which shows that the leaders who must give support do not have a complete understanding to train their
teams
☐ There is no place for skeptics, or team reservations. No discussion, and no support for change
☐ The approach is deployed locally or for a short time, or only for some departments: after a few years, leaders in the company do not
speak the same strategic language anymore
Leadership of ☐ There is a lack of conviction and enthusiasm to start
top executives ☐ There is a lack of presence at the shopfloor or a lack of suitable questioning. The deployment of Hoshin kanri will be disconnected
from reality
☐ There is not enough time and energy allocated to have a complete understanding and coordination
☐ The deployment of Hoshin kanri is delegated, particularly to support functions (the same factor of failure as for Lean15 )

115

Before concluding this chapter helping to shed some light on how to progress and
deploy the approach successfully and how to avoid the pitfalls, I suggest looking at
the rate of failure observed in the deployment of strategies, i.e., the percentage of
strategies that were intended but not executed or implemented without producing the
expected results.
I could have started with this to convince you to follow me in the Hoshin kanri
approach. Indeed, it is often stated that the rate of failure of strategy implementation
lies at 50 to 90%. However, this is an overestimate, and the actual rate is unknown
(Cândido et al. 2015). Most estimates are based on obsolete, flaky, or even non-
existent evidence, so no robust estimation seems available (Cândido et al. 2015).
Why is it so complicated to determine the strategy failure rate convincingly?
Several points may offer an explanation (Cândido et al. 2015):

• There is little evidence based on scientific work.
• The context and methodology are seldom objectively given.
• Most of the highest estimates generally come from consultancies that have to
convince their customers of a marketing strategy and to choose their services.
• The criteria used to define an action plan and success or failure criteria can be
very different.
• The people who evaluate the rates of failure are not always the same, and there
can be a deviation in objectivity.
• The method based on interviews or case studies draws statistics or analytical
generalizations.
However, independently of the rate itself, it seems that the number of strategic
initiatives that fail is higher than expected, considering the energy given to define
them particularly (Cândido et al. 2015).
It should also be noted that even if the failure rate is not known precisely, it
seems that this has decreased in the time since the 1980s (see Fig. 11.2). This is
undoubtedly related to better training and knowledge of hurdles to overcome.
Fig. 11.2 Rate of implementation failure of professional strategies—source (Cândido et al. 2015)
References 117
References
M.H. Ahmed, Lean transformation guidance: why organizations fail to achieve and sustain
excellence through lean improvement. Int. J. Lean Thinking 4, 1 (2013)
A. Alic, J. Ideskog, Hoshin kanri—the Japanese way of piloting—an exploratory study of a Japanese
strategic management system. Master thesis with Business Administration, Jönköping University,
May (2016)
C.J.F. Cândido, S.P. Santos, Strategy implementation: What is the failure rate?” J. Manage. Organ.
21(2), 237–262 (2015)
B. Flyvbjerg, Four Ways to Scale Up: Smart, Dumb, Forced, and Fumbled Saïd Business School
Working Papers, University of Oxford. (2021) https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3760631
P. Masai, P. Parrend, N. Toussaint, P. Collet, Is the Lean Organisation a Complex System?
Complex Systems Digital Campus ’15—World e-Conference, Sep 2015, Tempe, United States
<hal-01291054>
M. Oudhuis, A. Olsson, Cultural clashes and reactions when implementing lean production in a
Japanese owned Swedish company. Econ. Ind. Democracy 36(2), 259–282 (2013)
Sanches Frutuoso Silva R, Cultural influences on the implementation of production management
tools: a literature review. Master thesis submitted to Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (2013)
C. Vinardi, “Le Lean : atouts, impacts et limites” (Vuibert Editions, Paris, 2013) (2013)
C. Vinardi, “Les équipes multiculturelles en entreprise : les comprendre, les gérer, les développer”
(Maxima Editions, Paris, 2016) (2016)
C. Vinardi, PhD Thesis on Industrial Engineering : “Les défis du Lean à l’ère de la mondiali-
sation et de l’industrie 4.0. Université de Technologie de Compiègne, 2019. Français. {NNT:
2019COMP2500}. {tel-03201462} (2019)
Chapter 12
Conclusion
Apart from Japan, several international companies have tried the approach on a large
scale over a significant period. Still, few companies have tried it out entirely, and
some have failed by not implementing the principles carefully or with the proper
rigor (Hutchins 2010).
Hoshin kanri is an approach for management and deployment of business strategy.
It requires the organization and particularly its top executives, to have the matu-
rity and commitment to develop and support their teams in action. I asked some
of the interviewed top executives what they would say to other top executives to
convince them to commit themselves.
“Trust the process. It’s the most important management tool in my CEO
toolbox.”
“There is nothing more important for your company’s success

than executing on your strategic priorities, if not, then what?”
“If you want to see your organization grow as a whole, as well as at the
individual level to achieve far better commercial results, go for Hoshin kanri.
Better results will show up with much higher team satisfaction.”
From experience, Hoshin kanri is more demanding for top executives than
any other strategic approach, particularly in its execution. I know of several top
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5_12
120 12 Conclusion
executives who had committed themselves but then gave up, often discreetly or by
delegating the approach, which is a sure way to lead to failure.
Those who held on all have this in common to enjoy going to the shopfloor
of their teams. In general, they also understand and have a prior practice
of approaches in operational excellence/ Lean.1 This is either because they
have progressed at various levels of organizations or because they accepted expert
assistance to understand them and sustain them for the long term.
For my part, I was lucky to start my career as a leader before alternately moving
to functional and operational roles up to executive management. I discovered Hoshin
kanri at the beginning of my career, having tried out Lean.2 The company I then
worked for did not match that approach to strategy. Therefore, while trying to under-
stand what was missing for my company to be effective, I read the book by Akao
(1991) for the first time.
Later, when I was in a position to define and implement a strategy, I was advised
by consultants I knew. I did not refer to Hoshin kanri to my teams when I started, as
my company did not know the approach at all then. Moreover, I was not the head of
the company, and the executive management did not deploy it. In addition, I wanted
to be comfortable deploying the approach with my teams with what I had understood
before giving it a broader scope.
As with the interviews I shared, I quickly obtained results regarding alignment
and coordination between my teams as of the first year and a better understanding
of their contributions. The approach also enabled me to unite my executive team in
action around common objectives. This is genuinely motivating on a journey that is
no easy ride.
Later in my career, I was lucky to support top executives of various nationalities
to start Hoshin kanri or help experienced others. I learned much at their side, mainly
empirically. Integrating this approach in my doctorate thesis in 2019 also allowed
me to take a scientific perspective to analyze academic publications against my
experience.
“Requirement, Purpose, Exemplarity, Curiosity and Discipline” guides the leaders
who commit to the approach daily. Hoshin kanri compels leaders to take interest in
what their teams do to understand better their needs for support and the challenge of
their propositions.
I would, therefore, like to finish by asking the question raised by Pete McCabe:
“What is more important for a top executive than to commit themselves to the
effectiveness of the implementation of their strategic approach?”.
References
Akao Y.: Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM (Productivity Press, 1991) (1991)
D. Hutchins, Hoshin Kanri: the strategic approach to continuous improvement. AI & Soc 25, 371–
372 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-009-0203-8)

Glossary
(1) Lean (Vinardi 2013)

It is a consistent puzzle that was built on History and the experience of Men. It
is intended to be a uniform summary of the quest for performance. The aim is
to do better, quicker, cheaper, and more durably for customers and employees.
John Krafcik of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology is said to have coined
the word “lean” and summarized its organization mode and the tools and prin-
ciples by studying the Toyota Production System and Toyota City in Japan. The
term was then made famous by the book by J. Womack and D. Jones, “The
machine that changed the world.”
(2) Top-Down
“From top to bottom” describes the downward flow from top executives of an
organization or company to the most operational levels. This flow concerns
information, problems, ideas for improvements, and decisions.
(3) Bottom-Up
“From bottom to top” describes the upward flow from the most operational
levels to top executives of an organization or company. This flow concerns
information, problems, ideas for improvements, and decisions.
(4) A3 One-Page Report

It is a summary that fits on a single page. It is called “A3” because of its paper
size, which was commonly used. However, it can have a poster format when
used in a workshop.
Restricting itself to a single page compels the writer of the summary to focus
on what is essential and on what is most important. Hence, the principle is to
use this document for discussion that does not take more than 10-15 min.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20963-5
122 Glossary
The format must be simple, easy to use, illustrated, and able to generate interest
to the reader.
The A3 one-page report is used to explain a problem-solving or an improve-
ment having various steps. The same document can be updated progressively.
It follows the PDCA cycle.
(5) Matrix Structure

It is a type of organization that is not exclusively based on an operational entity
but also on the line of profession and region, for example, which are reference
functions.
Suppose a sales operational entity produces and sells carpets in France. It
depends operationally on the “carpet” department. Functionally, it also answers
both to the sales department, which defines and coordinates the excellence of
the “sales” line of profession, and also to the France Division, which defines
and coordinates actions for the French market.
This kind of organization makes sense when organizations grow and aim to avoid
duplication of resources that can be pooled. It also ensures the coordination of
teams according to their needs. This organization facilitates the cross-reading
of teams which is more complete.
It is more complicated to set up than an operational organization and depends
mainly on the credibility and influence of functional teams.
The most straightforward setup is a two-level matrix (the above example has
three). Generally, each grows with two parents who do not have the same role
but are complementary. The teams should be able to do the same.
(6) PDCA (Vinardi 2013)

PDCA is called the “PDCA cycle” or “Deming wheel.” In the beginning, it
was rather called the “Shewhart cycle,” referring to Mr. Shewhart, who worked
with Mr. Deming.
This cycle has four steps and is used to solve problems such as improvements.
Plan: prepare
● define the subject, the problems
● determine the initial state with the data collection and objectives
● analyze the gap to be filled and the main success conditions
● define assumptions and work methods through a plan (protocol) and a schedule
with clear milestones and the required resources
● inform and train the people involved
Glossary 123
DO: implement
● deploy the plan
● identify deviance (what can distort results)
Check: check results and correct
● validate the results
● correct the plan if necessary
Act: share experience and capitalize
● establish a report to understand the conditions for success and reasons for failure
● draw conclusions and teachings
● put the results into perspective
● standardize and share standards for success
(7) Benchmarking
Benchmarking comes from marketing that needed comparisons with the
competition regarding the market, services, and products.
This term is now used to understand the competitive environment in terms of
results, processes, and organization (to adapt and reproduce them).
It is supplemented with competitive intelligence, which describes the state of
the art, at time t, in terms of technology, process, or products.
(8) Action Work Out Mode (Vinardi 2013)

A meeting is held with a multidisciplinary group and a coordinator, and if
necessary, a sponsor and leader are involved. They last half a day or a full day
and are called “intensive days.” In general, 3 to 5 days are sufficient.
The collection of ideas is done immediately or in the 3 to 6 months that follow.
It aims to accelerate implementation.

Vinardi 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinardi 2023

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vinardi 2023

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SpringerBriefs in Applied Sciences and Technology

SpringerBriefs are characterized by fast, global electronic dissemination,

ISSN 2191-530X ISSN 2191-5318 (electronic)

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

11.3 Leadership Adaptation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 1

Whereas there are hundreds of thousands of scientific publications on Lean1

Two, at the head of intermediate-sized companies:

And one, at the head of a start-up:

1 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (1).

Benoit MARTIN CEO and founder of POPCARTE since 2005 (start-up of 30

Frederic PETRUS SITE DIRECTOR of 220 people at Guerbert (turnover of e732 m

Masaaki IMAI FOUNDER of KAIZEN INSTITUTE, in 1985, recognized as one of the

Keeping those notions in mind, here is a simple version of the definition:

“Hoshin kanri is a way of collecting and deploying strategic objectives via

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 5

By Policy”, “Managing for results”, “Hoshin Planning”, “target-means deployment”,

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 7

4.1 Necessary Inputs and the Analytical Approach

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 9

Fig. 4.2 SWOT matrix Positive Negative

4.2 A Few Key Strategic Methods

“Before, I designed the strategy alone with a top-down approach without

4.2.1 Focus on Management by Objectives

Fig. 4.3 Cascading

Leader | Level n Objective C

1 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (2).

on a few critical strategic objectives (two to five maximum) communicated clearly

4.2.2 Focus on the Balanced Scorecard

2 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (3).

4.3 Contributions of Hoshin Kanri

Therefore, BSC is to be classified more as an analysis approach than a complete

“Hoshin kanri definitely helps prioritize long-term goals and reconcile

“Hoshin kanri brings:

Particular messages come up regularly, such as alignment of teams (widely

5.1 General Presentation

There are two main items (Vinardi 2019):

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023 19

5.2 Key Steps

5.2.1 Defining the Missions and Vision

AMAZON “To be Earth’s most customer-centric company, where customers

As we have mentioned in the definition above, Hoshin kanri focuses on having a

NO SHARED SHARED VISION

5.2.2 Sharing the Feedback of Experience

Suppose the feedback of experience (FoE) is not formally part of company or

The feedback of experience is produced by looking at the most significant

At the annual review (i.e., at the consolidation), the feedback of experience

5.2.3 Nemawashi: Trust and Organization to Share

1 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (3).

Fig. 5.3 Illustration of

3 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (4).

5.2.4 Defining and Designing the Action Plans

With the feedback of experience undertaken annually, long-term strategic objectives

4 A more precise definition is found in the Glossary (2).

● There is a variety of possible masterplans. Make the first one as efficient

5.2.5 Executing and Correcting

Defining and formalizing a masterplan is not sufficient for it to be implemented.

“After several years, I am still learning...”

END OF QUARTER-2 QUARTER -1 QUARTER 1, 2, 3, 4 YEAR

ACT PLAN DO & CHECK