Search results

The purpose of this paper is to show that Hoshin Kanri has the potential to integrate the operations strategy literature into a coherent structure. Hoshin Kanri’s planning process is typically described as a top-down cascading of goals, starting with the senior management’s goals and moving to the lowest organizational level. The authors argue that this misrepresents a firm’s actual cognitive processes in practice because it implies reasoning from the effects to the cause, and assumes a direct causal relationship between what the customer wants and what is realizable by the system.

This study is conceptual, based on abductive reasoning and the literature.

The actual strategic thought process executed in an organization consists of three iterative processes: (i) a translation process that derives the desired customer attributes from customer/stakeholder data, (ii) a process of causal inference that predicts realizable customer attributes from a possible system design and (iii) an integrative process of strategic choices whereby (i) and (ii) are aligned. Each element relies on different cognitive processes (logical relation, causal relation and choice).

By aligning the thought and planning processes, the competing concepts of manufacturing strategy are integrated into a coherent structure.

Different techniques have to be applied for each of the three elements. As each element relies on different cognitive processes (logical relation, causal relation and choice), the use of unifying tools (e.g. in the form of matrices, as often presented in the literature) is inappropriate.

This is the first study to focus on the thought processes underpinning manufacturing strategy.

Maintenance, an essential element of facilities management and a fundamental requisite for increasing availability and sustaining stable processes, has been the focus of technical research for decades. However, there has not been a concrete and well‐structured classification of different maintenance types that is accepted globally. The need for such a widely acceptable classification is the main incentive to delve into and create a new maintenance taxonomy. This paper aims to address this issue.

The paper gathers and reviews several examples of maintenance classifications and viewpoints from different geographical regions in the world. Afterwards, it integrates various maintenance‐related terms and terminologies with the authors' systematic‐thinking approach, systems thinking, based on which strategic thinking is formed. Consequently, this combination results in a globally acceptable systematic classification of maintenance.

The outcome of this scientific endeavour is a newly developed maintenance taxonomy, which is established according to the correct and clear‐cut use of the terminologies of strategy, policy and tactic, which correspondingly connote the art and science of what, the plan and guideline of how, and the style and methodology of how.

This paper provides maintenance and facility stakeholders with a new maintenance taxonomy based on the available terminologies and practices taking into account the conception of strategy science. Such a classification cannot only ease the technical communication in this sector but also be accepted as a global standard due its lucid and logical structure.

Aside from the literature review and comparison of different maintenance terminologies and classifications, the paper offers a new methodical classification of maintenance, which has a strong scientific foundation and can be commonly accepted as a standard in the field of maintenance and facilities management.