The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/1754-2731.htm
TQM
31,2
118
Received 1 June 2018
Revised 10 September 2018
Accepted 25 October 2018
The TQM Journal
Vol. 31 No. 2, 2019
pp. 118-135
© Emerald Publishing Limited
1754-2731
DOI 10.1108/TQM-06-2018-0076
Hoshin Kanri and A3: a proposal
for integrating variability into the
policy deployment process
Guilherme Tortorella
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil
Paulo A. Cauchick-Miguel
Department of Production and Systems Engineering,
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil and
Post-Graduate Program of Production Engineering, Universidade de Sao Paulo,
Sao Paulo, Brazil, and
Paolo Gaiardelli
Universita degli Studi di Bergamo, Bergamo, Italy
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to propose a methodology to support the Hoshin Kanri (HK) process
taking into account the variance of senior managers’ perspective regarding the relationships among
objectives, key performance indicators and continuous improvement (CI) projects.
Design/methodology/approach – A four-step methodology incorporates the A3 report into the HK, whose
deployment was weighted by the variability among managers’ perception about the importance of each
decision. This methodology was applied in a market-leader Mexican auto parts manufacturing company that
is undergoing a Lean Manufacturing (LM) implementation.
Findings – The results indicate that the proposed methodology provides an easier approach to consolidate
different perspectives and weight the importance of CI projects. Moreover, it minimizes the possibility of
managerial conflicts or the influence of a determined senior manager on others’ opinions during the
deployment and prioritization.
Practical implications – This work may be of great interest to managers, consultants and professionals
who deal with the implementation of LM and wish to prioritize the importance of CI projects within the
perspective of HK.
Originality/value – HK provides a systematic approach to integrate strategic management with daily routine
management through an adequate deployment of organizational policies to all levels. However, companies
usually struggle with several issues such as the style of senior managers and consensus establishment among
different opinions, which emphasizes the relevance of the proposed methodology in this study.
Keywords Hoshin Kanri, A3 methodology, Policy deployment
Paper type Research paper
1. Introduction
Policies and strategies are used to focus an organization on key priorities that need
to be aligned, developed and deployed throughout the whole organization, in order to
ensure their translation into operational targets that are then managed to completion
(Giordani da Silveira et al., 2018). In this sense, Hoshin Kanri (HK) is a method originally
developed in Japan from the concept of Management by Objectives and has been translated
as “policy deployment, policy control and management by policy.” HK is claimed to be basis
for successful organization-wide management (Akao, 1991), providing a systematic
approach to integrate strategic management with daily routine management (Pun et al.,
2000; Chiarini and Vagnoni, 2016).
The authors appreciate the recommendations of the two reviewers who dedicated their time and
provided great suggestions to enhance the manuscript.
 For HK to work, all strategic initiatives across the organization must consistently apply the Hoshin Kanri
same approach for deployment. Hence, HK enables an integrated daily activity, underpinned and A3
by good vertical and cross-functional communication in which everyone in the organization is
involved to ensure a significant buy-in to the overall process (Giordani da Silveira et al., 2018).
However, although HK is widely deemed and applied in most internationally focused
Japanese-owned companies, outside Japan its significance has still gone largely unreported
(Nicholas, 2016). Previous studies (e.g. Kunonga et al., 2010; Chiarini, 2016) evidenced issues 119
with which these companies wrestle, such as the style of senior managers, the management of
the review process, a requirement for discipline in limiting objectives to a vital few and
questions about how far to involve the workforce in consensus process.
HK is closely associated with the concept of Lean Manufacturing (LM) (Mothersell et al.,
2008; Chiarini and Vagnoni, 2016), since it is a socio-technical continuous improvement (CI)
approach that reinforces the participation and involvement of all organizational levels
(Tortorella et al., 2017). Nevertheless, most studies on implementation have largely
neglected the importance of policy-based targets and the way they are linked to
organizational change management, resulting in a research focused on the labor process and
the control and motivation aspects (Soltero, 2007; Yang and Yeh, 2007; Melander et al., 2016).
Additionally, many organizations use aspects of HK to exclusively plan a LM initiative, and,
hence, mistakenly separate out other non-lean issues from the policy deployment
(Mothersell et al., 2008; Nicholas, 2016).
Based on the aforementioned arguments, a research question can be raised:
RQ1. How to integrate managers’ perspective variability into the HK process?
To answer this question, this study aims at proposing a methodology to deploy strategic
policies taking into account the variance of senior managers’ perspective regarding the
relationships among objectives, key performance indicators and CI projects. Moreover, this
methodology incorporated the A3 report, which has been largely evidenced as a tool to
structure and synthesize a problem-solving process (Dennis, 2006; Tortorella et al., 2015).
The proposed methodology was applied in a market-leader Mexican auto parts
manufacturing company that is undergoing a LM implementation and needed to better
align its strategies and improvement initiatives throughout the company.
The contribution of this study is twofold. First, the incorporation of the variability of
managers’ opinions with respect to the policy deployment allows overcoming consensus-
building issues that usually appear in such process. According to Chiarini (2016), the
achievement of a truly consensual decision is often associated with the prevailing
management style within the organization. If the criteria by which judgments are made, either
by groups or individuals, are based on misguided notions, concepts or missions, HK process
will not lead to an effective deployment. In this sense, the proposed methodology mitigates
such issue. Second, the utilization of A3 reports to consolidate the deployment process
provides a clearer understanding of the rationale behind the prioritized strategies and a
structured path to a more assertive follow-up from managers, facilitating dissemination to all
organizational levels.
Besides this introductory section, this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 presents a
brief literature review on policy deployment and A3 report. Section 3 describes the proposed
methodology, whose results are displayed in Section 4. Finally, Section 5 draws some
concluding remarks and future research opportunities.

2. Theoretical background
2.1 Policy deployment
Policy deployment is an organizing framework for strategic management, which comprises
four main tasks (Tennant and Roberts, 2001; Su and Yang, 2015): to focus on corporate
TQM direction by setting a few annual strategic priorities; to align the strategic priorities with
31,2 local plans and programs; to integrate strategic priorities with daily management; and to
provide a structured progress review of the strategic priorities. Furthermore, an assertive
deployment encompasses companies knowing what their external and internal customers
want and understanding what needs to be done to meet and exceed their expectations
(Mothersell et al., 2008).
120 A commonly applied model of HK is based on the Shewhart “Plan–Do–Check–Act”
(PDCA) CI cycle (Giordani da Silveira et al., 2018). The idea is that a process of work should
be planned, performed, checked and action taken to bring work back to plan and the plan
changed if considered necessary and the cycle started over (Deming, 1986; Melander et al.,
2016). Thus, the applied measurement system needs to be realistic, focused on both
processes and results (Kunonga et al., 2010). Moreover, transparent measures support an
exposition and reconcilement of conflicting management objectives.
In that sense, group consensus on strategic guidelines and priorities is vital for an effective
deployment. The application of HK relies on a process called “catchball” to gain consensus on the
deployment of Hoshin targets and measures in a team environment (Witcher et al., 2008;
Nicholas, 2016). It is a critical element that requires continuous communication to ensure the
development of appropriate targets and means, and their deployment at all levels in the
organization. It is this iterative process of discussing and debating plans and targets at each level
until consensus is reached, along with methods for meeting the goal, which ensures that the total
organization is committed to the same goals (Su and Yang, 2015; Chiarini and Vagnoni, 2016).
Several studies reported different adaptations of HK to the existing organizational
thinking and management approaches. At Xerox, for instance, HK was used to develop
core competences (Witcher and Butterworth, 1999). Later, Pun et al. (2000) proposed the
integration of Quality Function Deployment into the HK approach to help develop
viable strategies and attain service quality deployment in a typical engineering service
organization. Specifically, Soltero (2007) explored how HK can support company’s
environmental performance improvement. Yang and Yeh (2007) developed a model of HK
management and the Six Sigma program that links organizational objectives and the Six
Sigma program to the organization’s vision and strategy. More recently, Su and Yang (2015)
applied HK into the human resources management of a high-tech firm in order to improve
the recruitment process and increase its assertiveness, while Chiarini (2016) investigated the
implementation of HK as an alternative system to balanced scorecard for deploying
corporate social responsibility strategies. The work of Chiarini and Vagnoni (2015) claimed
that Fiat has developed its world-class manufacturing model as a sort of alternative to
Toyota Production System-Lean of which one of the relevant dimension is the strategic
management based on “cost deployment” measures wastes and losses on processes. One of
the overall, Melander et al. (2016) highlighted that a successful application of HK must
properly balance the inherent level of formalization therein, with company’s existing
management practices. Barnabè and Giorgino (2017) discussed the application of lean
strategy principles and tools in different scenarios like the healthcare sector. Such
awareness is the starting point for customizing the policy deployment process, so that
proper levels of engagement and flexibility can be balanced with increasing systematic
formalization, and optimized adequacy.

2.2 A3 methodology
To acquire the necessary information in order to provide effective solutions to problems, one
of the main practices for identifying and solving problems is the A3 methodology, which has
its origin in Toyota Motor Corporation (Sobek and Smalley, 2011). It is a powerful practice
that directs the problem solvers to a deeper understanding of the problem or opportunity,
generating new ideas on how to tackle the problem (Saad, Al-Ashaab, Maksimovic,
Zhu, Shehab, Ewers and Kassam, 2013). It also provides learning and accumulation of Hoshin Kanri
knowledge, helping people learn how to learn (Tortorella et al., 2015). Thus, the concern is and A3
not only about the problems but also about the process of problem solving, in order to make
it transparent and understandable, enabling the dissemination of knowledge throughout the
organization. Moreover, Loyd et al. (2010) stated that the differential of the A3 methodology
is that it is not the format that matters, but the process that guides the user; reinforcing the
PDCA at all levels of the organization. 121
Among its advantages, it is noteworthy as a communication tool that follows a logical,
visual and standardized structure, assisting in the improvement of skills and knowledge of
the individuals in the organization from the resolution of problems (Shook, 2008). As it
provides simplicity and synthesis, the A3 methodology allows that only the most critical
information be shared, avoiding long reports which are difficult to view (Borches and
Bonnema, 2010). Another key issue relates to a significant change in people’s mindset, since
it aligns the efforts to the organization’s goals (Ulonska and Welo, 2013) and, hence, a high
level of involvement for obtaining results is important (Ghosh, 2012).
However, there are some limitations in the application of the A3 methodology. Visich et al.
(2010) highlighted some difficulties in its implementation, such as the tendency to omit steps in
the analysis of the problems, incorrect identification of the problem to be solved, the collection
of information related to the situation in which the problem occurs, and the capture and
sharing of knowledge obtained (Saad, Al-Ashaab, Shehab and Maksimovic, 2013). It is also
noted that there are different perspectives on the same problem. This is due to the fact that
each individual has their own assumptions, which vary according to their education, culture
and knowledge, hindering a consensus on the possible causes (Silva Filho and Calado, 2013).
Overall, A3 methodology does not require major technological resources, and can be
sketched with pencil and paper; regardless the access to computers to manage data. Such
characteristic enables leadership to be as close as possible to the problem-solving process
and focus on the proper coaching and orientation needs implicit to the methodology (Shook,
2008; Tortorella et al., 2015). Regarding its utilization to support HK, few authors (e.g.
Jackson, 2006; Kuo et al., 2009; Barnabè and Giorgino, 2017) have explored and adapted the
A3 methodology incorporating different tools and approaches in order to complement
the deployment process. However, studies that integrate the underlying variability of the
consensus-building process are still scarce in the literature (Nicholas, 2016).

3. Proposed methodology
This proposal aimed at applying integrating the decision variability into the HK process
supported by A3 methodology. It was assumed that no previous knowledge on the tool was
required. The proposed methodological approach was based on a field research, considering
qualitative and quantitative data provided during the activity of strategic policy
deployment. The proposed methodology consisted of four steps, as summarized in Table I.
The first step consisted of an extensive data collection and definition of the deployment
structure for the site under analysis. To achieve that, semi-structured interviews were
carried out with senior managers in order to define and collect data about business primary
indicators (lagging indicators), and to establish the proper policy deployment structure with
the corresponding data on the main leading indicators. According to Diez et al. (2015),
lagging indicators are typically output oriented, easy to measure but hard to improve or
influence, while leading indicators are typically input oriented, hard to measure and easy to
influence. A minimum three-year period was considered in order to allow the verification of
trends on the selected indicators. Moreover, this step also aimed to consolidate the site’s
strategic objectives of the current year, which have been previously established by the
company’s headquarter. It is noteworthy that all senior managers were interviewed
separately in order to capture individual points of view and avoid influencing each other’s
TQM Step Description Activities Support sources
31,2
1 Data collection and Semi-structured interviews, qualitative and Miles and Huberman
definition of deployment quantitative data analysis, graphic tools (1994)
structure
2 Strategic A3 definition Analysis of site’s current state and reflection Saad, Al-Ashaab,
on past initiatives (Plan) Maksimovic, Zhu, Shehab,
122 Sharing of site’s strategic objectives and Ewers and Kassam, 2013;
prioritization of site’s CI projects (Do) Saad, Al-Ashaab, Shehab
Definition of a verification routine and and Maksimovic, 2013
standards for site’s CI projects (Check–Act)
3 Tactical A3s deployment Analysis of area’s current state and Internal company
reflection on past initiatives (Plan) documents
Deployment and prioritization of area’s CI (e.g. strategic planning,
projects (Do) performance reports, etc.)
Definition of a verification routine and
Table I. standards for area’s CI projects (Check–Act)
Proposed 4 Catchball and deployment Reaching team-based consensus on the Tennant and Roberts
methodology sign-off deployment of Hoshin targets and measures (2001)

opinion at this step. Therefore, the defined deployment structure comprised one strategic A3
for the whole site deployed into four tactical A3s: supply chain, manufacturing, engineering
and human resources (depicted in Figure 1).
The strategic A3 report was defined in Step 2. For that, all senior managers were
gathered into a one-day meeting, which was divided into three sets of activities: analysis of
site’s current state and reflection on past initiatives (Planning); sharing of site’s strategic
objectives and prioritization of site’s CI projects (Do); and definition of a verification routine
and standards for site’s CI projects (Check–Act). Initially, senior management identified
performance trends on primary business indicators and discussed site’s initiatives that were
either successful or failed for the past few years. Such critical analysis, also denoted as
hansei process, emphasizes what went wrong and allows creating clear plans for ensuring
that it does not reoccur; this is done constantly and consistently (Liker and Hoseus, 2009).
Regarding the second activity of Step 2, site’s strategic objectives determined by
company’s headquarter were presented to senior management. The plant manager (or the

Strategic A3

Tactical A3 Tactical A3
Supply Chain Manufacturing

Tactical A3
Engineering

Figure 1.
Proposed deployment Tactical A3
structure Human Resources
main site leader) should present them in order to properly share, contextualize and highlight Hoshin Kanri
their importance from an organizational perspective. Furthermore, senior managers were and A3
asked to brainstorm and list on the rows of a matrix M the site’s CI projects that presumably
support these objectives, and assign relationship intensity between them and the primary
business indicators displayed in the columns. The intensity of the relationship quantifies the
impact of each project, denoted as ci (i ¼ 1, …, k), on each business indicator bj ( j ¼ 1, …, l ),
whose values vary in a Likert scale from 1 (weakly impact) to 5 (strongly impact). The 123
average rij and variation coefficient vcij (which is given by the quotient between standard
deviation and the corresponding mean value) of responses at each intersection between row
i and column j were consolidated, as shown in Figure 2. Larger values of vcij indicate a high
variability among senior managers’ perspective regarding the impact of the project on the
respective indicator and, hence, a poor consensus. It is noteworthy that the utilization of
discrete values, such as the Likert scale, has been extensively discussed and findings
indicate the feasibility of approaching such values based on parametric analysis (De Winter
and Dodou, 2010). Therefore, to consider into the prioritization of the top 5 site’s CI projects,
as suggested by Govindan et al. (2016), the variability among managers’ decisions, the
overall importance oi of each project was given by:

X
l  
oi ¼ r ij  1vcij : (1)
j¼1

The third activity of Step 2 consisted of senior managers defining how the prioritized CI
projects should be verified in order to orientate and address any potential issues within the
site. Moreover, the frequency of follow-up meetings is also defined at this activity, allowing
the establishment of “Check–Act moments” of the A3.
Step 3 deploys the strategic A3 into the four areas defined in Step 1. For that, senior
management was divided into smaller groups according to their roles in the company and
they were in charge of the corresponding tactical A3 deployment. Analogously, this step
consisted of three other sets of activities. The first one comprised the analysis of area’s
current state and reflection on past initiatives (Planning). Each group started with the
reflection process about the trends on the past three years of key leading indicators’
performance, whose data were already been collected in Step 1. Moreover, groups performed
a critical analysis of past initiatives and how successful they were within the area (“area
hansei process”). Second, groups brainstormed and listed area’s specific CI projects that may
support the top 5 site’s CI projects prioritized in the previous step. Furthermore, these
projects assessed based on their impact on the area’s leading indicators according to a
similar five-point Likert scale (1 – weakly impact; 5 – strongly impact). In this sense, each
group consolidated its own relationship matrix T, where the rows include the area’s CI
projects ax (x ¼ 1, …, u) and columns the leading indicators ey (y ¼ 1, …, v). Responses from
group members for the relationship intensity at each intersection of T were consolidated
into their mean values dxy and variation coefficient vcxy, as shown in Figure 3.

Primary business indicators

Site’s CI projects b1 b2 b3 … bl Overall importance
c1 o1
c2 o2
rij
c3 o3
Figure 2.
…

vcij
Matrix M
ck ok
TQM Relationship intensities with smaller variation coefficients indicate a more robust opinion on
31,2 the impact of the project, and hence, the overall importance of area’s CI projects px was
obtained as follows:

X
v  
px ¼ dxy  1vcxy : (2)
y¼1
124
The five projects with highest values of px were then prioritized and groups follow the third
activity that corresponded to the establishment of verification routine and standards for area’s
CI projects (Check–Act). Therefore, managers should define the standards for area’s follow-up
meetings, such as frequencies, duration of the meetings, who must be involved, how they
track projects and their impacts, etc. It is noteworthy that the proposed deployment
methodology was carried out following the A3 methodology but expanded into large-sized
papers hanging on the wall. Such approach avoids the utilization of computers and promotes
the actual interaction among group members (Tortorella and Cauchick-Miguel, 2017),
facilitating group’s dynamics and reinforcing a more active participation.
Finally, to ensure the horizontal alignment among the tactical A3s, in Step 4 each group
should present their A3 to other managers (catchball process). Thus, managers must write
down on notes their suggestions to each tactical A3, providing feedback with respect to
disconnected or conflicting projects, initiatives that may not work well based on previous
experience, etc. This minimizes the possibility of public conflicts by allowing people to
gauge the feasibility of success, to create understandings about agreements and
compromises (Witcher et al., 2008). Then, each group turned back to their corresponding A3
and analyzed the obtained suggestions, consolidating the rejected ones, and addressing the
issues indicated by the accepted ones. Once again, groups present their revised A3,
highlighting the undertaken changes and providing rationale on the rejected suggestions. If
consensus on each tactical A3 is obtained among senior managers, then each one signs each
A3 representing the agreement with the deployment (A3s sign-off ).

3.1 Profile of the unit analysis and data collection

The field work was carried out in a large-sized Mexican auto parts manufacturer that has
been undergoing a LM implementation since 2008. The site under study presented several
improvement initiatives but usually misguided and disconnected from each other, which
leads to conflicts and frustration throughout the implementation. Moreover, most attempts
to lean implementation in the site were arbitrarily concentrated on shop floor (material flow),
neglecting the potential benefits from its implementation on administrative areas
(information flow), such as engineering, human resources, etc.
The senior staff of the site comprised 15 managers and 1 plant manager, whose areas of
responsibility differ among each other. For data collection and deployment structure
definition, all managers were individually interviewed during a1-h meeting. These
interviews allowed the establishment of the deployment structure (tactical A3s) with the

Top five site’s Area’s CI Area’s leading indicators

CI projects projects e1 e2 e3 … ev Overall importance
c1 a1 p1
a2 p2
Figure 3. dxy
a3 p3
…

Proposed matrix T
for area’s CI
…
…

vcxy
projects prioritization
c5 au pu
corresponding group members and leading indicators (see Table II). Specifically, the Hoshin Kanri
interview with the plant manager was key to consolidate and collect data related to the and A3
business primary indicators, such as safety (incident rate), customers’ complaints (CC),
delivery schedule achievement (DSA), sales, gross profit (GP), capital expenditure (CE)
and employees’ satisfaction (ES). It is noteworthy that some of the primary business
indicators were replicated into the groups’ leading indicators, due to their importance and
direct relationship. 125
During the strategic A3 definition, all managers participated during a one-day long
meeting. Initially, data regarding the past three years of each primary business indicators
were exposed and they were asked to reflect on their trends and discuss site’s past initiatives.
This activity resulted in the “Planning” stage of strategic A3 (illustrated in Figure A1).
It lasted approximately 2 h and comments were registered together with their rationale.

4. Results and discussion

The plant manager was invited to explain the site’s objectives for the year, which were
determined by company’s headquarter. These objectives were plotted and deeply discussed
in order to share and clarify any potential misunderstanding. Strategic objectives were
mainly related to employees’ and customers’ satisfaction, manufacturing technological
advances and suppliers’ development. To keep company’s information confidential, the
details about these objectives could not be exposed in this paper.
One of the first results comprised the establishment of the site’s CI projects that aimed to
support these objectives. First, 15 CI projects were brainstormed and listed in the rows of M,
whose columns contained the seven primary business indicators selected previously. After
that, each manager assigned a score for the intersections of M, which represent the impact of
each project on the corresponding primary business indicator. Table III displays the
obtained results for this step (Table I). Again, the name of the projects was intentionally
saved to attain company’s confidential policies. From the 15 CI projects, the ones with the
highest overall importance and, hence, prioritized for the site were: c1 (o1 ¼ 10.2), c5 (o5 ¼ 9.9),
c8 (o8 ¼ 10.3), c13 (o13 ¼ 12.4) and c15 (o15 ¼ 8.4). Thus, these five projects had their
implementation timeline discussed and one senior manager assigned for each one of them as
responsible for their development and implementation. It is noteworthy that, although c3, c4
and c9 had the highest mean values, the high variability among managers’ opinions
significantly decreased their overall importance values, resulting in their exclusion from the
final site’s CI projects portfolio.

Tactical A3 Group members Leading indicators

Manufacturing 4 manufacturing managers Scrap, overall equipment efficiency

(OEE), first-time quality, mean time to
repair (MTTR) and mean time
between failures (MTBF)
Supply chain 1 supply chain manager DSA, inventory turns (IT), premium
1 purchasing manager freights (PF), inventory accuracy (IA)
1 sales manager and suppliers’ complaints (SC)
1 finance manager
Engineering 2 engineering managers Labor productivity (LB), time-to-
2 quality managers market (TTM), customers’ complaints
(CC) and tooling expenses (TE)
Human 1 plant manager Absenteeism, turn over, overtime, ES Table II.
resources 2 human resources managers Tactical A3s groups
1 health, safety and environmental (HSE) manager and leading indicators
TQM Primary business indicators
31,2 Site’s CI projects Safety CC DSA Sales GP CE ES Sum of mean values Overall importance

c1
r1j 4.5 3.7 2.8 4.1 3.4 1.8 2.4 22.8 10.2
vc1j 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.9 0.9 1.1

126 c2
r2j 3.2 2.5 1.7 4.0 2.4 3.5 4.2 21.5 3.2
vc2j 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.4 0.7 0.9
c3
r3j 2.5 3.7 3.0 4.8 3.0 4.5 3.6 25.2 8.4
vc3j 0.9 0.6 0.8 0.5 0.2 1.0 0.5
c4
r4j 3.4 2.6 3.4 3.2 3.8 2.5 4.2 23.2 6.5
vc4j 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.6 0.9 0.8
c5
r5j 3.5 2.1 2.6 2.9 1.5 2.6 2.5 17.8 9.9
vc5j 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.2
c6
r6j 2.6 3.7 1.8 2.4 3.0 2.5 1.7 17.9 7.0
vc6j 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6 0.9 0.2
c7
r7j 2.9 3.8 2.4 4.5 4.2 2.4 2.5 22.8 7.3
vc7j 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.3 0.3 0.5
c8
r8j 3.6 1.8 1.7 2.5 3.2 4.5 2.6 20.0 10.3
vc8j 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.4
c9
r9j 3.0 2.9 3.7 2.5 4.1 3.7 3.2 23.2 8.2
vc9j 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3 0.7 0.5
c10
r10j 2.6 3.8 2.4 3.4 2.4 2.6 3.6 20.9 8.2
vc10j 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.2 0.2 0.3
c11
r11j 1.8 2.9 3.0 2.5 2.9 3.0 4.8 20.9 8.0
vc11j 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.6 0.5
c12
r12j 4.5 1.8 2.4 2.5 3.0 4.5 3.4 22.2 7.4
vc12j 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.6 0.2 1.1 0.9
c13
r13j 3.4 2.4 4.1 2.8 2.5 3.4 3.0 21.7 12.4
vc13j 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.4
c14
r14j 2.5 4.2 2.4 1.8 2.4 1.7 3.6 18.8 8.2
vc14j 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.5 1.3 0.2

Table III. c15

Obtained matrix M r15j 3.8 4.2 3.2 1.7 1.8 2.8 2.6 20.2 8.4
from the company vc15j 0.8 0.4 0.6 0.7 1.0 0.4 0.5
under study Note: Gray cells indicate the areas of CI projects that were prioritized due to their overall importance value
Finally, regarding the “Check–Act moments,” senior management defined a quarterly Hoshin Kanri
meeting to critically analyze the trends on the primary business indicators and their and A3
association with both the site’s strategic objectives. Furthermore, a monthly meeting was
determined to follow up the status and guided the implementation of five site’s CI projects.
For that, managers suggested the creation of a site’s obeya room, which refers to a very
visually engaging meeting room that aims to speed communication and decision making
among all individuals involved in managerial planning (Morgan and Liker, 2006). This is 127
intended to reduce “departmental thinking” and improve on methods like e-mail and social
networking, reinforcing teamwork at an administrative level (Nascimento et al., 2018).
On the subsequent day, managers were split into the pre-defined groups (see Table II) in
order to start deploying the site’s strategic A3 into their corresponding tactical A3s. Similarly,
in order to facilitate activities and enhance managers involvement, tactical A3s were
developed on large-sized charts hanging on the wall (Plate A1 illustrates this activity).
Initially, each group analyzed their leading indicators trends and consolidated comments on
group’s past initiatives that either were successful or not. Groups were supposed to share with
other senior managers their insights about their own performance trends and area’s critical
analysis (“Planning” stage of the A3). This whole activity lasted for approximately 2 h.
The “Do” stage of the tactical A3s consisted of groups performing brainstorming sessions
and listing area’s CI projects on their respective matrix T. Each listed project should be
categorized according to at least one of prioritized site’s CI projects. As described in Section 3,
relationship intensities between area’s CI projects and leading indicators were assessed based
on a five-point scale by each group member, resulting in a mean value and variation coefficient
for each intersection of the matrices. Overall important values were then calculated at each
matrix, allowing the identification of the five most important CI projects for each one of the
four areas. Table IV illustrates the resulting matrix T for the manufacturing group. With
respect to site project c1, three manufacturing CI projects were listed, from which a1 obtained
the highest value of overall importance ( p1 ¼ 7.8). Similarly, for supporting the implementation
of site’s CI projects c3, c8, c13 and c15, manufacturing projects that were prioritized based on
their impact on leading indicators and managers’ opinions variability were: a5 (p5 ¼ 7.3), a8
( p8 ¼ 11.0), a10 ( p10 ¼ 9.7) and a13 (p13 ¼ 5.7), respectively. Matrices T for other areas with the
respective CI projects that were prioritized are displayed in Tables AI–AIII.
Once prioritized the areas’ CI projects, the catchball process began. Therefore, groups were
invited to present to each other their list of CI projects and the resultant main ones. Meanwhile,
other managers registered their suggestions with respect to these projects to avoid conflicting
initiatives and emphasize others. These suggestions were then assessed by each group and the
accepted ones were incorporated into the respective A3. The rejected ones were separated and
the reasons for their rejections were explained to senior managers during a new feedback round.
Although the incorporated suggestions entailed significant improvements on the “Planning” and
“Do” stages of these A3s, surprisingly no changes were observed on the CI projects prioritized for
each area. This whole activity took approximately 3 h, and two rounds of feedback were
necessary to achieve the horizontal alignment and consensus among the tactical A3s.
The last activity consisted in defining how each area would perform its own
“Check–Act” moments. Thus, groups established and customized their frequencies,
responsibilities, timelines and routines for allowing the proper verification of the
development level of each CI project, as shown in Table V. In addition, as recommended for
the strategic A3, all groups were encouraged to expose their A3 and utilize the obeya room in
order to perform these verification and orientation meetings. Finally, to formalize the whole
policy deployment, each manager signed the strategic and tactical A3s as a symbol and
evidence of agreement and commitment to them.
After the conclusion of activities planned for both days, senior managers were invited to
provide feedback on the methodology carried out. Overall, all of them emphasized its
TQM Manufacturing leading indicators
31,2 Site’s CI projects Manufacturing First-time Sum of mean Overall
portfolio CI projects Scrap OEE quality MTTR MTBF values importance

c1 a1 d1y 3.7 4.2 1.2 3.7 4.5 17.5 7.8

vc1y 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.2
a2 d2y 4.0 1.7 3.2 2.5 2.2 13.7 7.6
128 vc2y 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.9
a3 d3y 3.0 2.7 3.2 4.2 4.0 17.2 6.9
vc3y 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.6
c5 a4 d4y 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.2 1.7 10.7 2.7
vc4y 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.6
a5 d5y 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.2 19.2 7.3
vc5y 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6
c8 a6 d6y 3.2 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.0 14.2 5.3
vc6y 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6
a7 d7y 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 9.2 2.9
vc7y 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.3
a8 d8y 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.0 20.5 11.0
vc8y 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3
c13 a9 d9y 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.0 2.0 13.0 3.8
vc9y 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3
a10 d10y 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 17.0 9.7
vc10y 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5
a11 d11y 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 10.5 3.8
vc11y 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.2
c15 a12 d12y 1.7 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 13.7 3.0
Table IV. vc12y 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.4
Obtained matrix a13 d13y 4.2 2.7 4.5 2.0 2.2 15.7 5.7
T for the vc13y 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.3
Manufacturing area Note: Gray cells indicate the areas of CI projects that were prioritized due to their overall importance value

Frequencies
Follow-up Critical
A3 level Involved members and report analysis
Strategic Site Senior managers Monthly Quarterly

Tactical Manufacturing All manufacturing managers and coordinators Daily Monthly

Supply chain Supply chain, purchasing, sales and finance Weekly
Table V. managers and coordinators
Verification standards Engineering Engineering and quality managers and
for strategic and coordinators
tactical A3s Human resources Human resources and HSE managers

practical aspects and how they allowed more assertive decisions and avoided wasting time
on endless discussions that usually lead them to conflicts. Moreover, the possibility of
weighting decisions based on the variability level among their opinions was considered a
fairer process that all of them could easily understand and follow, entailing a truer
acceptance of the decisions taken.
Overall, the proposed methodology has provided a smoother decision-making process
while it has saved a significant amount of time during company’s HK process. Despite their
organizational relevance, policy deployment process is usually seen by senior managers as a
time-consuming activity that rarely generates an assertive alignment between strategic and
tactical initiatives (Yang and Yeh, 2007; Diez et al., 2015). The observed gains throughout the Hoshin Kanri
application of the described methodology enable changing senior managers’ current and A3
perception. Furthermore, the incorporation of A3 reports allowed an easier visualization and
standardization of the HK process, which facilitates understanding and buy-in of everyone
involved. Such fact increases the acceptance and agreement level not only among senior and
middle managers but also operational level, which is usually involved later and whose inputs
are frequently neglected. Therefore, while the proposed methodology embraces the variability 129
among decision makers, it also enhances employees’ participation and commitment.

5. Conclusions
HK is used as an organizing framework for properly deploying strategic policies to all
organizational levels. To achieve an effective vertical and horizontal deployment, managers’
perspectives, which usually differ according to their roles and departments within the
organization, must be taken into consideration. In this sense, this work aimed to propose a
policy deployment approach based on A3 methodology that incorporates the intrinsic
variability among managers’ opinions. The implications of this study are both theoretical
and practical and are described as follows.

5.1 Theoretical implications

In theoretical terms, the consideration of the variance of managers’ opinions during the CI
projects prioritization of strategic and tactical A3s allows to weigh decisions in a simpler
and wider approach. Most consensus-building methods are usually time-consuming and
require several interactions with decision makers. This proposal provides an easier
approach to consolidate different perspectives and increase or decrease the importance of
projects based on these. Moreover, the proposed methodology minimizes the possibility of
public conflicts or the influence of a determined senior manager on others’ opinions during
this prioritization, which is linked to the Japanese concept of nemawashi (to reach a
consensus about organizational decisions).

5.2 Practical contribution

With regard to practical contribution, an assertive implementation of HK strongly relies on a
refinement of cross-functional management relationships within the organization. In this
sense, the development of HK supported by the A3 methodology allows visual, logical,
continual and easy-to-track verification of targets and means throughout its implementation
timescale. Hence, managers can know at any moment where the business and its functional
areas are in strategic and tactical terms. Although it is not a novel approach, evidence of its
successful application is scant in the literature, which emphasizes the importance of field
work that deeply reports the application of such approach. Furthermore, the proposed
methodology allows assertive decisions, avoiding wasting senior managers’ time on
misunderstandings and exhausting discussions. The possibility of weighting decisions
based on the variability level among managers opinions seems a fairer process and easier to
comprehend and follow, entailing a truer acceptance of the HK process and its inherent
objectives and targets aimed by the company.

5.3 Limitations and future research

A few limitations of this study are worthwhile mentioning. Regarding the disclosure of
detailed data and information about company’s CI projects and performance indicators
involved in the HK process, some countermeasures were addressed in this paper to allow
sharing the process while keeping the confidentiality required by the company. Although
this fact may limit the comprehension about the end results, it does not avoid the
TQM understanding of how the proposed methodology was applied, its advantages and
31,2 drawbacks. Moreover, since this field work was performed in a Mexican auto parts
company, communication standards during the HK process were adapted to fit prevailing
cultural features, which centered the methodology application to site’ senior management
rather than all levels of the organization. Future studies should extend the proposed
methodology to other hierarchy levels in order to verify its validity with a broader scope.
130 In addition, extending this work to other units of analysis is required to increase the
external validity.

References
Akao, Y. (1991), Hoshin Kanri: Policy Deployment for Successful TQM, Productivity Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Barnabè, F. and Giorgino, M. (2017), “Practicing lean strategy: Hoshin Kanri and X-matrix in a
healthcare-centered simulation”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 29 No. 4, pp. 590-609.
Borches, P. and Bonnema, G. (2010), “A3 architecture overviews: focusing architectural knowledge
to support evolution of complex systems”, XX Annual International INCOSE Symposium,
Chicago, IL.
Chiarini, A. (2016), “Corporate social responsibility strategies using the TQM: Hoshin Kanri as an
alternative system to the balanced scorecard”, The TQM Journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 360-376.
Chiarini, A. and Vagnoni, E. (2015), “World-class manufacturing by Fiat: Comparison with Toyota
Production System from a strategic management, management accounting, operations
management and performance measurement dimension”, International Journal of Production
Research, Vol. 53 No. 2, pp. 590-606.
Chiarini, A. and Vagnoni, E. (2016), “Strategic planning for lean production, comparing Hoshin Kanri
with balanced scorecard”, in Chiarini, A., Found, P. and Rich, N. (Eds), Understanding the Lean
Enterprise, Springer, Cham, pp. 221-236.
Deming, W. (1986), Out of the Crisis: Quality, Productivity and Competitive Position, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, MA.
Dennis, P. (2006), Getting the Right Things Done: A Leader’s Guide to Planning and Execution,
Lean Enterprise Institute, New York, NY.
De Winter, J. and Dodou, D. (2010), “Five-point Likert items: t test versus Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon”,
Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, Vol. 15 No. 11, pp. 1-16.
Diez, J., Ordieres-Mere, J. and Nuber, G. (2015), “The Hoshin Kanri tree: cross-plant lean shopfloor
management”, Procedia CIRP, Vol. 32, pp. 150-155.
Ghosh, M. (2012), “A3 process: a pragmatic problem-solving technique for process improvement in
health care”, Journal of Health Management, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 1-11.
Giordani da Silveira, W., Pinheiro de Lima, E., Deschamps, F. and Gouvea da Costa, S. (2018),
“Identification of guidelines for Hoshin Kanri initiatives”, International Journal of Productivity
and Performance Management, Vol. 67 No. 1, pp. 85-110.
Govindan, K., Seuring, S., Zhu, Q. and Azevedo, S. (2016), “Accelerating the transition towards
sustainability dynamics into supply chain relationship management and governance
structures”, Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 112, pp. 1813-1823.
Jackson, T. (2006), Hoshin Kanri for the Lean Enterprise: Developing Competitive Capabilities and
Managing Profit, Productivity Press, New York, NY.
Kunonga, E., Whitty, P. and Singleton, S. (2010), “The applicability of Hoshin Kanri for strategic
planning and deployment in the public sector: a case study from NHS North East”, Journal of
Management & Marketing in Healthcare, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 87-97.
Kuo, M., Borycki, E., Kushniruk, A. and Lee, T. (2009), “Integrating A3 reports and the house of quality:
improving workflow in the recovery room using information technology”, MIE, Amsterdam,
pp. 416-420.
Liker, J. and Hoseus, M. (2009), “Human resource development in Toyota culture”, International Journal Hoshin Kanri
of Human Resources Development and Management, Vol. 10 No. 1, pp. 34-50. and A3
Loyd, N., Harris, G.A. and Blanchard, L. (2010), “Integration of A3 thinking as an academic
communication standard”, Proceedings of the IIE Annual Conference, Institute of Industrial and
Systems Engineers, January, pp. 1-6.
Melander, A., Löfving, M., Andersson, D., Elgh, F. and Thulin, M. (2016), “Introducing the Hoshin Kanri
strategic management system in manufacturing SMEs”, Management Decision, Vol. 54 No. 10, 131
pp. 2507-2523.
Miles, M. and Huberman, A. (1994), Qualitative Data Analysis, Sage Publications, London.
Morgan, J. and Liker, J. (2006), The Toyota Product Development System, Productivity Press,
New York, NY.
Mothersell, W., Moore, M. and Reinerth, M. (2008), “Hoshin Kanri planning: the system of five
alignments behind the Toyota Production System”, International Journal of Business Innovation
and Research, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 381-401.
Nascimento, D., Caiado, R., Tortorella, G., Ivson, P. and Meiriño, M. (2018), “Digital Obeya Room:
exploring the synergies between BIM and lean for visual construction management”, Innovative
Infrastructure Solutions, Vol. 3 No. 1, pp. 19-26.
Nicholas, J. (2016), “Hoshin Kanri and critical success factors in quality management and
lean production”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 27 Nos 3-4, pp. 250-264.
Pun, K., Chin, K. and Lau, H. (2000), “A QFD/Hoshin approach for service quality deployment: a case
study”, Managing Service Quality: An International Journal, Vol. 10 No. 3, pp. 156-170.
Saad, N.M., Al-Ashaab, A., Shehab, E. and Maksimovic, M. (2013), “A3 thinking approach to support
problem solving in lean product and process development”, Concurrent Engineering Approaches
for Sustainable Product Development in a Multi-Disciplinary Environment, Springer, London,
pp. 871-882.
Saad, N.M., Al-Ashaab, A., Maksimovic, M., Zhu, L., Shehab, E., Ewers, P. and Kassam, A. (2013),
“A3 thinking approach to support knowledge-driven design”, The International Journal of
Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 68 Nos 5-8, pp. 1371-1386.
Shook, J. (2008), Managing to Learn: Using the A3 Management Process to Solve Problems, Gain
Agreement, Mentor and Lead, Lean Enterprise Institute, New York, NY.
Silva Filho, O. and Calado, R. (2013), “Learning supply chain management by PBL with A3 report
support”, IFAC Proceedings Volumes, Vol. 46 No. 24, pp. 471-477.
Sobek, D. II and Smalley, A. (2011), Understanding A3 Thinking: A Critical Component of Toyota’s
PDCA Management System, CRC Press, New York, NY.
Soltero, C. (2007), “Hoshin Kanri for improved environmental performance”, Environmental Quality
Management, Vol. 16 No. 4, pp. 35-54.
Su, C. and Yang, T. (2015), “Hoshin Kanri planning process in human resource management:
recruitment in a high-tech firm”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 26
Nos 1-2, pp. 140-156.
Tennant, C. and Roberts, P. (2001), “Hoshin Kanri: implementing the catchball process”, Long Range
Planning, Vol. 34 No. 3, pp. 287-308.
Tortorella, G. and Cauchick-Miguel, P.A. (2017), “An initiative for integrating problem-based learning
into a lean manufacturing course of an industrial engineering graduate program”, Production,
Vol. 27, Special, p. e20162247.
Tortorella, G., Viana, S. and Fettermann, D. (2015), “Learning cycles and focus groups: a
complementary approach to the A3 thinking methodology”, The Learning Organization, Vol. 22
No. 4, pp. 229-240.
Tortorella, G.L., Vergara, L.G.L. and Ferreira, E.P. (2017), “Lean manufacturing implementation: an
assessment method with regards to socio-technical and ergonomics practices adoption”, The
International Journal of Advanced Manufacturing Technology, Vol. 89 Nos 9-12, pp. 3407-3418.
TQM Ulonska, S. and Welo, T. (2013), “New perspectives in the quest for unification of ‘Lean’ with traditional
31,2 engineering design methodology”, in Abramovici, M. and Stark, R. (Eds), Smart Product
Engineering, Springer, Berlin and Heidelberg, pp. 11-21.
Visich, J., Wicks, A. and Zalila, F. (2010), “Practitioner perceptions of the A3 method for process
improvement in health care”, Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, Vol. 8 No. 1,
pp. 191-213.
132 Witcher, B. and Butterworth, R. (1999), “Hoshin Kanri: how Xerox manages”, Long Range Planning,
Vol. 32 No. 3, pp. 323-332.
Witcher, B., Chau, V. and Harding, P. (2008), “Dynamic capabilities: top executive audits and Hoshin
Kanri at Nissan South Africa”, International Journal of Operations & Production Management,
Vol. 28 No. 6, pp. 540-561.
Yang, C. and Yeh, T. (2007), “An integrated model of Hoshin management and Six Sigma in high-tech
firms”, Total Quality Management & Business Excellence, Vol. 18 No. 6, pp. 653-665.

Appendix 1

Strategic A3

Site level

Tactical A3 Tactical A3

Tactical A3

Supply Chain Manufacturing

Human Resources

Tactical A3

Figure A1.
Representation of
strategic and tactical
A3s from the
company under study Engineering
Appendix 2 Hoshin Kanri
and A3

133
Plate A1.
Pictures of the actual
HK activities in the
studied company

Appendix 3. Matrices T for supply chain, engineering and human resources areas

Supply chain leading

indicators
Supply
chain CI
Site’s CI projects portfolio projects DSA IT PF IA SC Sum of mean values Overall importance

c1 a1d1y 1.5 3.0 3.5 4.2 4.0 16.2 5.3

vc1y 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.8 0.3
a2 d2y 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.2 4.0 20.5 2.6
vc2y 1.2 0.3 0.7 0.6 1.4
a3 d3y 4.2 2.7 4.5 2.0 2.2 15.7 8.4
vc3y 0.8 0.5 0.2 0.4 0.3
c5 a4 d4y 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.5 1.7 10.5 6.0
vc4y 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.5
a5 d5y 3.5 3.5 4.0 4.0 4.2 19.2 9.4
vc5y 0.4 1.0 0.3 0.7 0.2
a6 d6y 4.0 1.7 3.2 2.5 2.2 13.7 5.1
vc6y 0.5 0.7 1.0 0.3 0.6
c8 a7 d7y 1.7 4.0 3.5 2.0 2.5 13.7 5.8
vc7y 0.3 0.2 0.2 1.2 1.3
a8 d8y 3.2 3.7 2.7 2.5 2.0 14.2 5.3
vc8y 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6
a9 d9y 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.0 2.0 13.0 4.7
vc9y 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.9 0.3
c13 a10 d10y 3.0 2.7 3.2 4.2 4.0 17.2 6.1
vc10y 0.3 1.5 0.8 0.2 0.6
a11 d11y 3.7 4.2 1.2 3.7 4.5 17.5 1.1
vc11y 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.8 1.0
a12 d12y 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.2 1.7 10.7 3.6
vc12y 0.9 0.4 0.8 0.3 0.6
c15 a13 d13y 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 2.5 17.0 9.7
vc13y 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.3 0.9
a14 d14y 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.2 9.2 2.3
vc14y 0.3 0.4 0.2 1.4 1.2 Table AI.
Note: Gray cells indicate the areas’ CI projects that were prioritized Supply chain
TQM Engineering leading
31,2 indicators
Engineering
Site’s CI projects portfolio CI projects LB TTM CC TE Sum of mean values Overall importance

c1 a1 d1y 3.2 3.7 2.7 2.5 12.2 3.8

vc1y 1.0 0.2 1.2 0.4
134 a2 d2y 4.2 2.7 4,5 2.0 13.5 4.6
vc2y 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.6
a3 d3y 3.0 2.7 2.0 1.2 9.0 4.4
vc3y 0.9 0.4 0.3 0.2
c5 a4 d4y 3.0 2.2 2.0 1.5 8.7 3.1
vc4y 0.5 0.5 1.2 0.3
a5 d5y 3.0 3.2 2.7 2.0 11.0 3.0
vc5y 0.2 1.2 0.8 0.6
c8 a6 d6y 2.7 2.5 2.2 2.2 9.7 3.9
vc6y 0.4 0.9 0.7 0.4
a7 d7y 1.0 2.0 2.2 1.7 7.0 2.3
vc7y 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.0
c13 a8 d8y 4.0 1.7 3.2 2.5 11.5 6.7
vc8y 0.1 1.4 0.3 0.2
a9 d9y 4.0 4.5 3.0 3.0 14.5 5.8
vc9y 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.9
a10 d10y 3.0 2.7 3.2 4.2 13.2 4.8
vc10y 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.9
a11 d11y 3.7 4.2 1.2 3.7 13.0 1.5
vc11y 0.7 0.9 0.3 1.2
a12 d12y 1.7 4.0 3.5 2.0 11.2 3.7
vc12y 1.0 0.9 0.4 0.4
c15 a13 d13y 1.5 3.0 3.5 4.2 12.2 37
vc13y 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.8
a14 d14y 4.5 4.0 3.7 4.2 16.5 4.7
vc14y 0.3 1.8 0.2 0.5
a15 d15y 1.7 4.5 4.0 3.0 13.2 0.7
Table AII. vc15y 0.2 0.9 1.1 1.2
Engineering Note: Gray cells indicate the areas’ CI projects that were prioritized
 Human resources leading indicators
Hoshin Kanri
Human and A3
resources
Site’s CI projects CI Turn Sum of mean Overall
portfolio projects Absenteeism over Overtime ES values importance

c1 a1 d1y 3.3 3.5 2.5 3.8 13.0 7.9

vc1y 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.4 135
a2 d2y 4.0 2.8 2.3 2.0 11.0 7.9
vc2y 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.5
c5 a3 d3y 3.0 3.5 2.8 3.5 12.8 7.9
vc3y 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.4
a4 d4y 2.3 1.8 2.0 1.5 7.5 4.1
vc4y 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.3
c8 a5 d5y 2.5 3.0 2.8 1.5 98 4.8
vc5y 0.2 0.6 0.5 0.8
a6 d6y 2.3 2.0 1.8 2.0 8.0 2.9
vc6y 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.8
a7 d7y 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.3 11.8 5.8
vc7y 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.7
c13 a8 d8y 4.0 1.5 1.5 1.8 88 4.6
vc8y 0.2 0.8 0.6 0.9
a9 d9y 2.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 13.0 9.8
vc9y 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.2
a10 d10y 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 11.0 5.8
vc10y 0.2 0.8 0.7 0.3
c15 a11 d11y 2.0 1.8 1.5 3.5 8.8 4.1
vc11y 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.4
a12 d12y 2.5 3.0 3.5 3.0 12.0 5.2
vc12y 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.5
a13 d13y 2.0 2.8 3.0 4.0 11.8 7.4
vc13y 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.2 Table AIII.
Note: Gray cells indicate the areas’ CI projects that were prioritized Human resources

Corresponding author
Guilherme Tortorella can be contacted at: gtortorella@bol.com.br

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com