In one minute
Connect a few strategic priorities to frontline experiments and regular review.
Set a small set of breakthrough objectives, negotiate contributions across levels and functions through catchball, then review lead indicators and adapt the plan through PDCA. Alignment is a dialogue, not a one-way cascade.
The problem it addresses
Annual goals are announced but teams cannot connect them to feasible work or challenge the assumptions behind them.
A regional health network promises shorter referral waits. Clinics point out that incomplete referrals and staffing gaps, not just scheduling, determine delay.
When to use it
- Use Hoshin Kanri when annual goals are announced but teams cannot connect them to feasible work or challenge the assumptions behind them.
- The team can examine: A strategic challenge, baseline measures, operational constraints, responsible teams and review cadence.
- A relevant situation is: A regional health network promises shorter referral waits. Clinics point out that incomplete referrals and staffing gaps, not just scheduling, determine delay.
When not to use it
Do not use it to replace evidence, accountable judgement or affected people's participation.
Cascading numeric targets without resources, local knowledge or a mechanism for changing course.
Inputs required
A strategic challenge, baseline measures, operational constraints, responsible teams and review cadence.
Step-by-step process
1. Bound the decision and name its owner.
Write the scope, decision owner and people who can veto or revise the result before starting the workshop.
2. Collect the necessary evidence and affected perspectives.
Collect and date the necessary evidence: A strategic challenge, baseline measures, operational constraints, responsible teams and review cadence.
3. Select one or two breakthrough objectives and the constraint each addresses.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Select one or two breakthrough objectives and the constraint each addresses.
4. Ask frontline teams what contributions are feasible and what support they need.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Ask frontline teams what contributions are feasible and what support they need.
5. Negotiate cross-functional dependencies and name one owner per objective.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Negotiate cross-functional dependencies and name one owner per objective.
6. Choose leading measures, a bounded experiment and a monthly review.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Choose leading measures, a bounded experiment and a monthly review.
7. Revise activities when evidence contradicts the plan, while retaining the strategic intent.
Record the evidence and decision criterion for: Revise activities when evidence contradicts the plan, while retaining the strategic intent.
8. Record the output, next test and review trigger.
Store the artifact with its evidence links, owner, bounded next test and date or trigger for review.
AI automation lens
AI may sort authorised notes and expose missing evidence. It must not invent observations, silently decide for affected people or present a generated map as validated.
Visual model
Text alternative: Select one or two breakthrough objectives and the constraint each addresses; Ask frontline teams what contributions are feasible and what support they need; Negotiate cross-functional dependencies and name one owner per objective; Choose leading measures, a bounded experiment and a monthly review; Revise activities when evidence contradicts the plan, while retaining the strategic intent.
Interactive example
Scenario: A regional health network promises shorter referral waits. Clinics point out that incomplete referrals and staffing gaps, not just scheduling, determine delay.
Worked answer: Keep the access objective, negotiate clinic-specific contributions, test referral completeness first and review actual patient wait time monthly.
Facilitation notes
Record disagreements before synthesising; ask whose evidence is missing; state who may revise the result.
Expected output
- An inspectable decision artifact, its assumptions and evidence, a responsible owner, a bounded next test and a review date.
- Revise activities when evidence contradicts the plan, while retaining the strategic intent.
- A named owner, test and review date.
Common mistakes
Cascading numeric targets without resources, local knowledge or a mechanism for changing course.
Quality checklist
- The decision and system boundary are explicit.
- Affected people and alternative accounts are included.
- Each important claim has a source or is marked as an assumption.
- An owner, safeguard and disconfirming signal are named.
Template
Knowledge check
Question: What mistake would undermine this method in the scenario?
Answer: Cascading numeric targets without resources, local knowledge or a mechanism for changing course.
Related tools
References
- Hoshin Kanri — method source (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-10-09.
- Further practice reference (opens in a new tab). Accessed 2026-10-09.
Method profile
The method structures a discussion and a test; it does not establish causal proof or guarantee success.