CENTER FOR

QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT
JOURNAL RP04900
REPRINT NUMBER:

From the Chair of the Editorial Board Page 2

David Walden
The Principles of Hoshin Management in TQM Page 3
Professor Masao Kogure
Total Quality and the Renovation of Basic Education, Part 2 Page 13
Thomas H. Lee, Shoji Shiba, and Robert Chapman Wood
Systemic Approach to Management: TQM and Planning Page 24
Thomas H. Lee
Roundtable Report on a Presentation by Page 36
Professor Hajime Karatsu

Volume 3, Number 4 Fall 1994

© Copyright 1994, 1999 The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom
use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full
citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post to servers, or to redistribute to lists requires prior specific permission and/or a fee.
Copying is by permission of The Center for Quality of Management, Inc. • One Alewife Center, Suite 450 • Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 USA
Telephone: (617) 873-8950 • Email: publications@cqm.org The Center for Quality of Management Authors retain rights for re-publication of their articles.
ISSN: 1072-5296
The Principles and Practice of
Hoshin Management in TQM
Prof. Emeritus Masao Kogure
(Tokyo Institute of Technology)
Part 1: Functional Management
1. Introduction
In this series of papers, the author will discuss the
theoretical background and significant points of
the: Hoshin management and cross functional
management systems, which have been developed
over the past thirty years among Japanese compa-
nies practicing TQM (Total Quality Management).
In the author’s long experience in this field,
these systems are applicable not only to Japanese
companies but to any company in the world
when certain conditions, which will be described
later, are met. For example, at least three compa-
nies, two in the US and one in Taiwan, have ap-
plied these management systems and received
the Deming Application Prize for their work.
In this series, the concept of a Functional
Management organization is introduced before
the Hoshin Management and Cross Functional
Management systems are described in any depth.
A functional management organization is a pre-
requisite for the latter two systems — it is the
”executive agency” which has a deep relation-
ship to the two systems.1
In Part 1 of the series the author will discuss
functional management organization. In section
2 of Part 1, the meaning and definition of func-
tional management are described to provide
readers with a foundation for later discussions.
In sections 3 and 4, the author will discuss the
foundation of functional management, the neces-
sity of the division of roles between top manage-
ment and other layers of management, the
classification of managerial tasks in functional
management organizations, etc. In section 5, a
concrete typical model of the deployment of
functional management tasks is explained.
This discussion will provide the framework
for the discussion of Hoshin management and
routine management to be covered in later parts
of this series.
2. The Importance of Functional
Management
A premise for this series of papers is that the
management activities are carried out in organi-
zations which exhibit a hierarchical functional
departmental management structure. The reason
for this is that this type of organization has vari-
ous forms, from simple to complex, and also this
type of organization is most prevalent among
companies from a variety of industries in ad- Professor Masao
vanced countries, although it is especially preva- Kogure is
lent in manufacturing industry: so there should considered a
be a lot of diverse opportunities to practice all father of quality
the methodologies of this series. in Japan. He is a
Hierarchical management refers to a man- recipient of the
agement organization where management duties Deming Prize, as
are allocated to hierarchical levels in the organi- an individual.
zation such as the levels represented by general
manager, manager and assistant manager in an
office or foreman in a factory. Functional man-
agement refers to a management organization
where management activities are carried out in
functional units, called divisions or departments
in general, which are made by dividing functions
into two groups or types. One group is the func-
tions which correspond to the functions in a pro-
duction process, such as research and develop-
ment, design, purchasing, manufacturing, sales,
etc. Another group of functions corresponds to
the division of activities in managerial pro-
cesses. These functions include preparatory
functions such as planning, market surveys, and
performing functions which would be the ac-
tual performance itself such as the line functions
of research and development, design, purchas-
ing, manufacturing, etc.
A hierarchical functional management orga-
nization combines the two types of management
organizations just described. Figure 1(a), next
page, helps to clarify the combined state of these
types. First of all, it shows the functional part in
the top section. The divisions of typical activities
(functions) in a production process and divisions
of management functions are displayed along
axes X and Z respectively.
Second, hierarchical levels of management
activities are displayed along axis Y. Therefore,
by utilizing the three axes of X,Y,Z and modify-
ing figure 1(a), we can display a model of an ac-
tual organizational structure as a rectangular
1
The term executive agency is described in section 4 of this part of
the series.
Fall 1994 3
 X
ss

Personnel
ce
Pro
Divis ion
ion o d uct
f Fun Pro

Sales
ction by

Purchasing
Z by M
anag nc tion

Mfg.
eme f Fu
nt Pr no
oces isio
Div

Preparation
s

Design
n

Performance
atio
in istr

R&D
adm
inistr adm
ation

ent

Division of Function by
g em
m ana
man
agem

Hierarchical Level
ent

on
rati
oper ope
ation

Three Dimensional
Structure of
Management Functions
Y

Figure 1(a)

-
son
Per
nel
s
Z Sale
- c-
ufa
Man rging
n
taucrtiu
sing
TQM cha
Offic Pur
e (Prep
aratio ign
Surve n) Des
y
Plan Perfo D
ning R&
ance rm- ion
trat
inis
adm
adm
inistr
ation
ent
na gem
ma
man
agem
ent
on
rati
ope
oper
ation
Three Dimensional
Structure of Functional
Management Organization

Figure 1(b)

4 Fall 1994
solid block which is shown as figure 1(b), facing
page. Some common names of divisions/depart-
ments are shown in the top boxes of columns in
the X-Y plane, and likewise, in the Y-Z plane is a
breakdown of managerial functions (as dis-
cussed earlier). One can clarify mutual relations
among all company activities which belong to
any of the cubic blocks which is constructed by
the rows and columns of the X-Y and Y-Z planes
and their adjoining planes. For example, all man-
agement tasks for performing functions (activi-
ties) which belong to the Department of
Research and Development are included in the
hatched cube in Fig. 1(b) and all activities allo-
cated to the Manufacturing Department are in-
cluded in the sliced rectangular solid shown by
the dotted shadow in Fig. 1 (b). This clarifica-
tion of the relationships of activities helps in the
deployment of the Hoshin, which will be dis-
cussed in part 2 of this series.
In almost all business organizations, man-
agement activities are allocated to each manager
at each level of the hierarchy, as shown below
in section 3. Therefore, in the papers to come
in this series, “hierarchical functional depart-
mental management organization” will be re-
ferred to as simply “functional management
organization”, or sometimes for further simplifi-
cation, “functional management.”
Based on the foregoing, functional manage-
ment is defined as follows: all those managerial
activities carried out systematically by persons
who belong to a) hierarchically structured mana-
gerial units and b) these units are based on a
division/department organized through the func-
tional division of management tasks.
An added thought on hierarchical manage-
ment is that the number of hierarchical levels
differs from company by company. It may also
differ in the method by which authority is del-
egated. Recently there has been a general ten-
dency of making an organization flat by
simplifying its structure. However, the essence
of management activities does not change as
long as there exists a superior and a subordinate
in any form, even with a lesser number of hierar-
chical levels. Therefore it stands to reason that
the matters mentioned in this series are appli-
cable to business management in general.
3. Basic Concept Considerations for
Functional Management
The major role of top management is to them-
selves complete management activities concern-
ing the future — activities such as determining a
long-range plan and/or a management strategy
stand apart from their ordinary management ac-
tivities. Therefore, a rational execution of ordi-
nary management activities through TQM is
quite necessary to allow the top management
group to devote themselves to their major role.
The role of (line) managers is mainly to ex-
ecute ordinary or daily management activity.
However, in modern management organizations,
which in general aim to use human resources and
abilities to the best advantage, even managers do
not devote all of their time to ordinary manage-
ment activities, but also to assist top manage-
ment with ad hoc or future problems. This role
gives managers the chance to display their abili-
ties and make their jobs more meaningful to
work in. The weight of the roles of managers
change according to the level of hierarchy. In
general, the higher a manager’s hierarchical
level is, the larger the weight of his/her role in
assisting top management is.
If the amount of activities exceeds one’s per-
sonal capacity to complete them adequately and
one hopes to carry out management activities ra-
tionally, it is necessary to allocate these activi-
ties to many people. To achieve such an
allocation, horizontal and vertical division of
work are generally utilized together. As a con-
crete example, the horizontal division creates a
functional department based on process and the
vertical creates the functions of administration,
management and operation as a hierarchical
functional division of managerial activities. Re-
call the explanation of the X,Y and Z axes in
Fig 1(a) – Fig 1(c). The functional department
concerning the horizontal corresponds to the
axes X and /or Z. And the function concerning
the vertical is formed by allocating management
tasks along with the axis Y. Then, people who
are charged with such hierarchical functions are
called executives, managers, and operators re-
spectively. In this series of papers, the work of
an operator is that of a rank-and-file employee
other than those in the managerial ranks, e.g. a
salesman in a trading company, a waitress in a
restaurant, etc. as well as a factory worker in the
manufacturing industry. In that Hoshin manage-
ment will be treated as a central topic in this se-
ries, it goes without saying that several titles for
those in various hierarchical levels abound —
“general manager,” “manager” and “assistant
manager” in an office or “foreman” in a factory,
etc. generally, even though it changes according
to scale of enterprise and /or organization (refer
to Fig. 1(c), next page). And managerial tasks are
different for and allocated to each level of man-
agement in the hierarchy.
Fall 1994 5
 X
-
Person
nel
s
Sale
-
ufac
Man g
g turin
Z ch asin
Pur
Design
Exec
R&D
ge
har
n in c ion
so ct
per e fun
h
of t
-
func
it on . EO
e.g dent, C rector
s i D i
Executive

Pre aging
n
Ma tor
in- c
adm - Dire nag
er
istr a a l Ma
er
tion Gen er
nag er
Ma nag
Manager

st. Ma
i
n- Ass
ma - Division of Management
a e t
g rato
r
me
n Ope Filer) Functions by
nk &
Operator

(Ra Hierarchichal Level

r-
ope n
a t i o

Figure 1(c)

In general, these allocations are carried out
in the form of delegation of authority and re-
sponsibility. First, superior managers tend to
delegate managerial duties that are standardized
or are in large degree fixed to their subordinate
managers. And second, superior managers need
to devote themselves to the greatest extent pos-
sible to exceptional matters which are difficult to
delegate and other important matters delegated
to their subordinate managers that require some
managerial guidance or supervision by the supe-
rior. The ratio of delegation of duties from supe-
riors to subordinates is important and depends on
the circumstances surrounding the organization.
This topic will be discussed in greater detail in a
future release of the series.
Given that superiors should handle much of
that which requires their own guidance them-
selves, suppose that the management duty to
which superiors should devote themselves is ex-
pressed as (A) and the duty delegated to subordi-
nates is expressed as (B). Incidentally, it is well
known that all of the management activities
should be carried out through the PDCA cycle
and so each group (A) or (B) should be done un-
der PDCA cycle. Therefore, superiors should
carry out (A) themselves and delegate (B) to
their subordinates. However superiors hold the
authority and responsibility to correct actions
such as adding some action or canceling the del-
egation if found to be incorrectly executed by a
subordinate. In other words, it should be consid-
ered that the authority and responsibility of tak-
ing corrective action is kept inside the
management activities of (A), that which the su-
periors should do themselves.
About the formation of management duties
(A) and (B) shown in this section, it becomes
more understandable if one imagines an “alloca-
tion process” which is shown in Fig. 2 (page 6)
where a superior is allocated management duties
from his/her super-superior. The superior then
classifies these tasks, which are allocated as du-
ties just shown above, into (A) those which he/

6 Fall 1994
she will allocate to himself/herself as his/her du-
ties and (B) those which he/she will allocate to
his/her subordinates as their duties. (Details are
given in Note at end of section 5.)
4. Classification of Management Tasks
As discussed, the management tasks carried out
by (line) management are classified into the two
groups: (1) ordinary management tasks and (2)
ad hoc or future subjects. Of course, the tasks of
the two groups are carried out on the premise
that the company under consideration adopts a
certain type of functional management. And
here the word “management” means mainly
middle management and sometimes includes
lower management.
Details of the management tasks shown
above are as follows:
(1) Management Tasks Carried Out as Functional
Management
This means management tasks completed
through hierarchical functional management as
shown in Fig. 1(a) – Fig. 1(c) and includes the
management tasks classified into the two groups
as (A) management tasks devoted by superior
and (B) management tasks delegated to subordi-
nate as shown in Fig. 2–3. The tasks belonging
to (1) of Fig. 3 (page 7) have another classifica-
tion which depends on its “form fixation.” It is
because form fixation is one of the keys for suc-
cessful delegation of management tasks. Then it
is necessary to review the management tasks
from this point of view. Here, the three types of
form fixation such as fixed form, semi-fixed
form and non-fixed form are considered in Fig. 3
(page 9).
(2) Tasks of Ad Hoc or Future Subjects Allocated to
a Certain Person of Hierarchical Management Level
This means tasks allocated to a specific manager
as a special mission. In general, the content of
tasks differs from subject to subject and/or from
level to level of hierarchy. Such a subject is not
always given to every manager. As for the type
of form fixation, it is usually of non-fixed form.
Fig. 3 shows the classification of management
tasks of (1) and (2) shown above and type of form
fixation. Inside of (1), Fig. 3 also shows the two
groups of management duties classified as (A)
and (B) explained before versus type of form fixa-
tion by displaying management duties carried out
through Hoshin management, routine manage-
ment and other management tasks/duties, which
are to be discussed in Parts 2 and 3 respectively.
The reason why the two systems, Hoshin
management and routine management, are re-
ferred to here, although their details have not yet
been discussed, is as follows:
(1) A functional management organization is
an executive agency (a management organiza-
tion which practices the two systems) as shown
in section 1. It is therefore advisable to suggest
the role of the organization by exhibiting the
kind of management duties, (A) or (B), around
the two systems, in this part of the series.
(2) From the standpoint of delegation of
management tasks, the degree of form fixation is
an important key, and it is quite natural that the
activities around the two systems shown in (1)
become very important among activities carried
out in its executive agency, functional manage-
ment unit. Therefore, readers may understand
the relationship between the degree of form fixa-
tion and the two systems. (Refer to Fig. 3 again
when reading about Hoshin management and
routine management in Parts 2 and 3 of the se-
ries, respectively.)
Management tasks/duties in group (A) have
many exceptional matters which fall into the
non-fixed type. Therefore, a boundary between
the duties of Hoshin management and routine
management is not so clear while the corre-
sponding boundary in the management duties
delegated to subordinates in group (B) is clear,
because the duties of routine management are a
fixed form in principle.
In figure 3, the horizontal dotted line in the
column (A) of (1) and that of solid line in the
column (B) of (l) show a difference of clearness
of the boundary mentioned above.
5. Deployment of Management Tasks by
Hierarchy
Delegation of authority and responsibility to
each level of management differs according to
the span of control — the number of immediate
subordinates whom a superior can control (su-
pervise) effectively —in an organization and
also by other factors such as the company’s
scale, the kind of industry and state of organiza-
tion. It is also differs in how superiors determine
their control points, a kind of managerial tool
used by managers in Hoshin management and
routine management (for details, refer to Parts 2
- 4 of the series). Therefore, it is difficult to un-
cover a standard way that is germane to all com-
panies. However, it is possible to exhibit a
typical model through experiences accumulated
during the long history of TQM in Japan. As
long as the fundamental ideas pertaining to the
delegation of authority and responsibility (as
discussed earlier) are maintained in companies
Fall 1994 7
 Conversion of Management Tasks into
Management Duties through Allocation Process

super-superior level

~~~~ ~~~~
management management •> looked
executed by super-
by super-
duties(A) duties(B)
superior
superior the same batch of
management. tasks

management •> looked

tasks by superior
superior level

acceptance

"jump up" in the hierarchy

(take your bosses viewpoint)

classification

management tasks
(A) (B) are classified into
Allocation
(A)&(B) Process

allocation allocation
(to himself/ (to his/her
herself) subordinates)

management management •> looked

duties(A) duties(B) by superior
executed
by superior the same batch of
management. tasks

subordinate level •> looked

management
tasks by subordinate
Legend

activity

result ~~~~
stock
•> eye (looking)

Figure 2

8 Fall 1994
 Kind of Management Tasks vs. Type of Management Tasks
with Classification of Management Duties by Delegation
Figure 3
of any description, and necessary requirements
of the Hoshin management and routine manage-
ment principles (yet to be discussed) are also
maintained, then a general picture of how del-
egation takes place can be drawn as shown in Fig
4, next page.
Fig. 4 shows the way in which the first part
of the PDCA cycle (the “Plan” step) is divided
and delegated to subordinates sequentially down
the hierarchy, while the latter part of the cycle
(the “Check” and “Act” steps) is done succes-
sively by each superior, in sequence, up the hier-
archy. In a special case where a general
divisional manager is appointed as a chief of the
department under consideration, it may be
treated in the same way by adding the general di-
visional manager’s tier to the top of the figure.
As shown in Fig 4., the steps of the PDCA
cycle necessary to management activities are di-
vided and allocated to immediate subordinate
managers. In that case, management duties as-
signed to each level of managers are divided into
two parts. They are (A) management duties to
which a superior devotes himself/herself and (B)
the duty that is delegated to subordinates. At
that time, the duty (B) which is delegated to im-
mediate subordinate managers is divided again
into (A) and (B) and only duty (B) is delegated
again to the next lower level subordinates. In
such a way the division and delegation of man-
agement tasks is handed down the organization
to the level of operators. These divisions and
delegations of duties (B) are carried out through
the “plan” step of the PDCA cycle, even though
the contents differ according to the hierarchical
management level.
In figure 4, note the definitions of the fol-
lowing abbreviations:
P1 (plan by general manager): “policy formu-
lation and indication of a summary scheme such
as general plan”
P2 (plan by manager): “setting up an opera-
tional execution plan,”
P3 (plan by superintendent): “setting up of
concrete working schedule and its deployment”
P4 (plan by operator) = work which contains
elements of planning such as preparation and ar-
rangement.
The numbered suffixes in P1,P2, etc. refer to
levels in the organizational hierarchy. Thus,
there is a corresponding group of suffixes for
other steps in the PDCA process.
Most of the people at P4 levels are involved
in execution of plans or in operations that is
D(do). However, there are some planning activi-
ties which allow for suggestion for improvement
through QC circle activities and other systems
(e.g., suggestion programs).
Fall 1994 9
 Deployment of Functional Management Duties
Figure 4
If such a plan is indicated as Pi(i=1,2,3,4), Pi
can be divided into two parts of P which belongs
to (A) and (B) respectively. For the above case,
Pij(i=1,2,3,4; j=A,B) is to be used as general ex-
pression. And here, PiA(i=1,2,3) is carried out by
managers themselves as the management tasks
which require the manager’s devotion, and only
PiB(i=1,2,3) is delegated to their immediate sub-
ordinates respectively.
PiB(i=4), that is, plan P 4 for operators, is also
divided into P4A and P4B as shown in Fig 4. Strictly
speaking, it is not proper to use such an expression
because operators have no delegation items and
must do all things themselves. However, if we
change standpoint a little, operators do their op-
erational work along with PDCA cycle by using
authority of operation 2 which is delegated from
their superiors, and following to their
10 Fall 1994
superintendent’s indication or operation stan-
dards. This corresponds to the work (B) of man-
agers, because the operator “delegates” the
practice of the work under consideration to him-
self/herself. In Fig 4, such activities are shown as:
(1) (1)
P4B->D4B->C4B—>A4B = (D).
Operators are expected to make suggestions
for daily work improvements and/or new techni-
cal improvements through QC circle activities
and suggestion programs. It is well known that
2
Authority of operation is defined as authority by which an operator
operates machine and apparatus, uses certain tools, or consumes raw
material within the range of delegation; or similarly, the authority
by which a salesperson reduces the price of goods or utilizes
necessary expense for sales promotion within the range of
permission, etc.
this is one of the characteristics of Japanese
TQM. Such “suggestion activities” resemble in
character the management work to which superi-
ors devote themselves (A), but for the operators,
it is on a voluntary basis. Therefore, it is classi-
fied into (A) here. These activities run the
PDCA cycle through repeated steps of data col-
lection and analysis until getting a concrete sug-
gestion plan since taking idea. P4A and other
steps of the management cycle with suffix of 4A
in Fig 4 express the above mention.
As shown in Fig 4, the activity of Planning
Pi(i=1,2,3,4), especially that of P is divided and
delegated sequentially from upper level to lower
level and changes in character from abstract/gen-
eral to concrete/individual as it goes; and finally
such the concretized/individualized plans are put
into practice.
Activities in the “Check” step have almost the
same complexion—except in direction. These
move from lower level to upper level while ac-
complishing their role at each level. These are
shown by arrows in Fig 4. In this case, object
items of check: C1B, C2B, C3B and C4B are different
in that each manager’s management items and
span of control differ from level to level.
About the activities in the “Act” step of A1B,
A2B, A 3B and A 4B, the situation is almost the same
as in “Check” step activities. That is to say, con-
tent of actions carried out by each level manager
change gradually from lower level to upper
level. The higher a manager’s level goes up, the
more fundamental the contents of his/her action
becomes. In other words, contents of action
changes from corrective action for the present to
cause elimination, then goes to recurrence pre-
vention, and to prevention in design stage and
furthermore proceeds to correction of improper
system and finally to fundamental change of
whole systems.
As mentioned above, Check and Act for
group B, that is CiB and AiB (i=3,2,1), are
achieved and handle sequentially from lower
level to upper level. Superior managers on each
level do their own Check for activities and results
carried out and obtained by their immediate sub-
ordinates through their own check points which
will be shown in part 4 of this series. As for the
“Act” step, the situation is almost the same as in
the case of Check and some additional action by
superiors can be added if necessary. Therefore,
superiors must consider whether or not their sub-
ordinates’ management ability and the authority
which they have been delegated are adequate to
for the characteristic of plan under consideration,
that is PiB (i=figure which corresponds to the su-
perior) before delegation. Details on this as well
will be discussed in a later issue.
About management tasks/duties conforming
to group (A), a manager of each level keeps
those activities under him/her so as to do them
by himself/herself. Of course, in performing
these activities, it is needless to say that the man-
ager should rotate the PDCA as shown in Fig 4
by symbols of PiA, DiA, C iA and AiA (i=1,2,3). The
operator’s activities of proposing new improve-
ments do not become management task; how-
ever, it is almost same at the point of rotating the
PDCA cycle by himself/herself, P4A, D4A, C 4A,
A4A in Fig. 4 portray that meaning.
As established above, each level manager
carries out the management duties belonging to
(A) himself/herself and he/she delegates the
management duties belonging to (B) to his/her
immediate subordinates according to predeter-
mined rules, and he/she assumes the responsibil-
ity of delegation through doing Check with
Action if needed. In such a way, the activities of
the functional departmental management are car-
ried out in the style which concludes the man-
agement cycle for the whole department.
The fundamental idea regarding the way of
sharing management tasks does not change
whether the tasks are of fixed form or not.
Therefore, deployment from of each level of
management tasks are applied fundamentally to
all kinds of management tasks as shown in Fig
4. Here, management tasks refers to all kinds of
tasks/duties shown as routine management du-
ties, Hoshin management duties and manage-
ment tasks/duties to which a superior devotes
himself or herself in Fig. 3.
In the case of management tasks of fixed
form, however, even such management activities
of a higher level in quality, which are to be car-
ried out by upper level managers in case of non-
fixed form, can be delegated to subordinates in
fairly great amounts. Then, upper level manag-
ers can devote themselves to exceptional matters
which are difficult to delegate.
When one hopes to actually establish a suc-
cessful functional management organization, one
must adjust the span of control, the contents and
range of management tasks for each level of man-
ager according to the degree of form fixation for
each management duty about Hoshin manage-
ment and routine management, and task/duty
done by superior which have relations to just
former two management. At that time, one must
also consider degree of difficulty of Hoshin man-
agement and routine management, as the diffi-
culty differs in the content of the things addressed
Fall 1994 11
 by the two management systems. And finally, it
is to be desirable that all management tasks can be
carried out rationally by a small number of man-
agers, which comes by continual improvement of
management activities in performing form-fixa-
tion. A later part of the series will discuss this in
greater detail.
Here, ordinary tasks/duties which are allo-
cated to each level of management by hierarchi-
cal level has been explained. Ad hoc or special
projects that can be allocated to a certain man-
agement of some hierarchical level, will not be
handled in this series.
Note: In Fig. 2, three levels of management
are shown: “super-superior,” “superior” and
“subordinate.” First, suppose that we take as an
example the allocation process of the manager at
the “superior” level. In this case, the “superior”
manager is given the management duties “B”
from his/her super-superior manager, as shown
in Fig. 2. In this process the “duties” are to be
considered as “tasks,” which show the general
state before they are allocated as “duties,” to the
superior manager. It is because that they may in-
clude tasks which he/she will allocate himself/
herself as his/her own duties (shown as (A) in
Fig. 2, also Fig. 3) and which he/she will allocate
to his/her subordinates as their duties (shown as
(B) in Fig. 2, also Fig. 3), and also some tasks
such that he/she must carry out a certain tempo-
rary expedient for sudden circumstances-change
concerning the matter, etc. (shown as “Other
Management Tasks/Duties” on the right side half
12 Fall 1994
of the box (A) in Fig. 3). The superior examines
or looks at these tasks, thus the symbol for an
eye “•>” is used. The manager in question then
goes through two activities known as “accep-
tance” and “jump up.” “Jump up*” refers to a
process where the manager attempts to take into
consideration the tasks, which he/she has been
assigned, from the point of view of his/her boss
(in this case, the super-superior); this process
can take place through mutual communication
with his/her boss (in this case, the super-supe-
rior), if necessary.
In the allocation process, the manager classi-
fies the management tasks (which are “manage-
ment duties” from his/her boss’s point of view)
into (A) and (B) according to the rules shown in
section 3 and 4, Fig. 2 and 3. The tasks which are
classified into (B) are allocated to his/her subor-
dinates as their “management duties,” and those
classified into (A) are allocated to himself/her-
self as his/her own “management duties” in prin-
ciple and form a major part of the management
tasks/duties devoted by superior (A).
Fig. 2 shows this process. It is important to
recognize the step and idea of the conversion of
management “tasks” into management “duties”
and the different meaning of management “task”
and “duty” used in this paper.
*The word “jump up” was proposed by Prof.
Shoji Shiba, Univ. of Tsukuba/MIT on 1992. The
author used it under his permission in the author’s
idea of conversion of management duties.
The author wishes to express his apprecia-
tion to Mr. Richard Dyck of Teradyne for assis-
tance in translating and editing some sections of
this paper.
 CENTER FOR QUALITY OF MANAGEMENT JOURNAL
The Center for Quality of Management Journal is a forum for disseminating the
experience of organizations learning to implement modern management practices. It
seeks to capture experiences and ideas that may be useful to others working to create
customer-driven, continuously improving organizations.

The CQM Journal is refereed. However, it is not an academic publication. Experiences

and ideas will be published if they seem likely to be useful to others seeking to improve

JOURNAL their organizations.

Send to:

Editorial Board The Center for Quality of Management Journal

David Walden, Chairman
Center for Quality of Management
Stephen Graves
Professor & LFM Co-Director
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Editorial Department
One Alewife Center, Suite 450
Cambridge, MA 02140
Tel. 617-873-8950 Fax 617-873-8980
E-mail: publications@cqm.org

Ted Walls
Boston College
If you have thoughts for a paper and you would like to discuss it with us, please write,
Robert Chapman Wood call or submit an outline. We welcome your ideas.
Writer

Alan Graham
Consultant Final Manuscript Requirements:
Pugh-Roberts Associates

Shoji Shiba Entire manuscript should be double-spaced, including footnotes, references, etc. Text
Tokiwa University should include all the elements listed below. Generally, The CQM Journal follows the
editorial principles of The Chicago Manual of Style. We strongly prefer submissions in
eletronic format for all text and as many of the figures as possible. IBM-based software
(particularly Microsoft Word for Windows) is preferable to Macintosh-based software if
Production Team
you have a choice, but is by no means a requirement.
Eric Bergemann
Publisher Please include:
Kevin M. Young
Design & Production 1. Title page, stating the type of article (e.g., 7-Step case study, research paper, short
communication, letter to the editor, etc.), main title, subtitle, and authors’ full name(s),
affiliation(s), and the address/phone/fax of the submitting author;

CQM Officers 2. All needed figures, tables, and photographs (see below);
Ray Stata
Chairman 3. Footnotes (if appropriate), numbered consecutively from the beginning to the end of
the article;
Gary Burchill
President
4. Reference list, if appropriate.
Thomas H. Lee
Treasurer and President Emeritus
Figures, Tables and Photographs:
William Wise
Clerk
If you can, insert each figure or table into the text where you would like it to fall. Figures
should be composed to conform to one of two widths: 3 1/8 or 6 1/2 inches. The
maximum height for any figure is 9 3/8 inches. Text within figures should not be
smaller than 5 points and lines not less than 1/4 point at the figure’s final size. Figures
should labeled with the figure number underneath and title on top. Be sure that the text
mentions each figure or table.

Please retain separate PICT or TIFF files of figures generated in drawing programs and a
file with the text only for final submission.

Volume 8, Number 2 Cycle Time Reduction Special Issue Autumn 1999 2 67