National Academies Press: OpenBook
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R1
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R2
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R3
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R4
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R5
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R6
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R7
Page viii Cite
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R8
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R9
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R10
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R11
Suggested Citation:"Front Matter." National Research Council. 1994. Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/18453.
×
Page R12

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Learning from Japan Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices COMMITTEE TO ASSESS U.S.-JAPAN INDUSTRY AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT TRAINING PROGRAMS Manufacturing Studies Board Commission on Engineering and Technical Systems National Research Council National l'.-.& f-rcn Council 2101 Constitution Avenue H.W. Waahingt on L. C. 20418 Washington, D.C. 1994

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsible for the report were chosen for their special competences and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Upon the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Robert M. White is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, upon its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts and Dr. Robert M. White are chairman and vice chairman, respectively, of the National Research Council. This study was supported by Contract No. F49620-92-C-0021 between the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and the National Academy of Sciences. Available in limited supply from Manufacturing Studies Board National Research Council 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Room HA 286 Washington, D.C. 20418 Copyright 1994 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America

Committee to Assess U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Training Programs FRANK J. RILEY, Chair, Senior Vice-President, Bodine Corporation JAMES BALLOUN, Director, McKinsey & Company Inc. W. MARK FRUIN, Director, Institute of Asian Research, The University of British Columbia SUSAN HACKWOOD, Dean, College of Engineering, University of California, Riverside EDWARD L. HIGBIE, Advanced Manufacturing Staff, General Motors Corporation RONALD K. LEONARD, Director, John Deere Product Engineering Center JAMES L. MERZ, Director, Center for Quantized Electronic Structures (QUEST), Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of California, Santa Barbara TSUNEO OHINOUYE, President & Chief Executive Officer, Diamond Star Motors Staff VERNA J. BO WEN, Administrative Assistant, Manufacturing Studies Board THOMAS C. MAHONEY, Director, Manufacturing Studies Board MICHAEL A. MCDERMOTT, Program Officer, Manufacturing Studies Board THOMAS ARRISON, Research Associate, Office of Japan Affairs MARTHA C. HARRIS, Director, Office of Japan Affairs (until October 1993) 111

Manufacturing Studies Board CHARLES P. FLETCHER, Chair, Vice-President (Retired), Engineering, Aluminum Company of America SARA L. BECKMAN, Co-Director, Management of Technology Program, University of California, Berkeley LESLIE A. BENMARK, Manager, Global Supply Chain Systems, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Inc. STEVEN J. BOMBA, Vice-President, Technology, Johnson Controls, Inc. BRIAN E. BOYER, Vice-President, Military Programs, Northrop Aircraft Division GARY L. COWGER, Executive in Charge, North American Operations, General Motors Corporation PETER DiCICCO, Secretary/Treasurer, Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO HAROLD E. EDMONDSON, Vice-President (Retired), Manufacturing, Hewlett-Packard Company SARA GARETTSON, Director, New York City Industrial Technical Assistance Corporation THOMAS G. GUNN, President, Gunn Associates, Inc. ALISTAIR M. HANNA, Director, McKinsey & Company Inc. GEORGE J. HESS, Vice-President, Systems and Planning, The Ingersoll Milling Machine Company CHARLES W. HOOVER, JR., Professor, Department of Industrial and Mechanical Engineering, Polytechnic University STEPHEN C. JACOBSEN, Professor, Center for Engineering Design, University of Utah RAMCHANDRAN JAIKUMAR, Professor, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University J. B. JONES, Randolph Professor Emeritus, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University DONALD KENNEDY, Educational Representative, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers THOMAS L. MAGNANTI, George Eastman Professor of Management Services, Sloan School of Business Administration, Massachusetts Institute of Technology JOE H. MIZE, Regents Professor, School of Industrial Engineering and Management, Oklahoma State University JACOB T. SCHWARTZ, Department of Computer Science, Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University PAUL K. WRIGHT, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California, Berkeley IV

Staff THOMAS C. MAHONEY, Director MICHAEL A. McDERMOTT, Program Officer VERNA J. BOWEN, Staff Assistant LUCY V. FUSCO, Staff Assistant

Preface In the National Defense Authorization Act of 1991, the Congress provided $10 million to the Secretary of Defense to establish a program in "U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Training." The Air Force Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) was assigned to administer this new program, which provides support to universities, colleges, or nonprofit institutions to study Japanese methods for industry and technology management. According to the enabling legislation, "a major purpose of these programs shall be to prepare scientists, engineers, and managers to learn from their Japanese counterparts by being able to work closely with them throughout their careers in government or industry."1 To accomplish this, "the programs should provide training in the Japanese language and an understanding of Japanese business and social culture." The programs should also provide their participants with opportunities "to be directly involved in Japanese scientific research, engineering development, and management programs, and should be structured to help keep U.S. government and industry abreast of Japanese scientific and technical developments and their importance" (U.S. House of Representatives, 1990). In response to this legislation, the AFOSR issued a Request for Proposal on 10 May 1991. Four key goals were established for the program: (1) increase understanding of Japanese industry and technology management methods for the creative use of science and technology; (2) provide U.S. citizen and permanent resident scientists, engineers, managers, and students of industry and technology management training in the Japanese language and an understanding of Japanese business and social culture; (3) provide program participants with opportunities to be directly involved in Japanese scientific research, engineering development, and management activities; and (4) provide mechanisms for participation in the programs of scientists, engineers, and managers from the Department of Defense and Department of Energy laboratories (U.S. DoD, 1992). Twenty-five proposals were received, and four awards for two years each were granted on 30 September 1991. The awardees were the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the University of Michigan; Vanderbilt University; and the University of Wisconsin on behalf of the Engineering Alliance for Engineering Education (EAGLE), a consortium of 13 engineering schools, and the National Technological University. An additional $10 million was authorized in the 1992 Defense Authorization Act, which was used to fund another four programs. These awardees were Stanford University; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Pittsburgh in conjunction with Carnegie- vu

viii Learning from Japan Mellon University; and the University of New Mexico in conjunction with the University of Texas at Austin. In fiscal year 1993, the program again was funded at $10 million. A fifth goal was added to the original list: create mechanisms for the cooperation and involvement of U.S. industry and government in applying and employing the results of this program. Although there was no guarantee of continued funding for the first four awardees—whose initial two-year awards would have expired—, these schools were invited to submit proposals for another two years of funding. Based on the proposal evaluations, all of the 1991 awardees except Vanderbilt received new awards, and two new programs were funded: the University of Washington and the University City Science Center, a Philadelphia consortium that includes the University of Pennsylvania, Drexel University, Temple University, and several other smaller schools in the area. In July 1992, the Acting Director of Education, Academic, and Industry Affairs, Air Force Office of Scientific Research requested that the National Research Council establish a committee to assess the newly created U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Training Program. The National Research Council authorized two of its units, the Manufacturing Studies Board of the Commission in Engineering and Technical Systems, in cooperation with the Office of International Affairs' Office of Japan Affairs, to form the committee. The committee was asked to summarize and critique the approaches taken by the first four universities to receive funding from AFOSR; these findings were published in an interim report completed in September 1993 (NRC, 1993). The committee was also asked to provide a critical evaluation of the total program, identifying lessons learned and recommending steps to improve the program in the future. In particular, the committee was asked to (1) describe specific, appropriate criteria by which to determine the benefits of the program and to assess these benefits, (2) determine the value of the program to the target constituency in U.S. industry, (3) identify members of that constituency that deserve greater attention, and (4) make recommendations to strengthen the effectiveness of the program as more universities are funded. STUDY METHODOLOGY The research process adopted by the committee in response to the AFOSR request included three major elements: (1) the committee met with the program directors as a group in August 1992 and March 1993; (2) the committee visited, as subcommittees of three to five persons, all eight of the universities or groups of universities receiving funding in fiscal years 1991 and 1992, and solicited written information on each program's curricula, research activities, contacts in Japan, outreach efforts, and other program aspects; and (3) the committee reviewed relevant literature on Japanese management practices. The research and deliberations of the committee have resulted in a number of conclusions concerning the value of the U.S.-Japan Industry and Management Training Program, steps to maximize the program's value given its limited resources, and realistic expectations of what the program can contribute to U.S. industry and academia. The committee makes a number of observations regarding the difficulties of transplanting

Preface ix Japanese management practices to a U.S. cultural and economic context and the need, therefore, for the awardees to work closely with their customers in industry. Finally, the committee offers recommendations to strengthen the total program by building on the individual strengths of the awardees and suggesting ways to increase the levels of coordination and cooperation among them. REPORT STRUCTURE This final report is divided into five parts. Chapter 1 provides the context in which the committee believes Japanese industry and technology management practices must be studied and taught. Chapter 2 presents the committee's assessment of the research, language and culture, and curriculum development aspects of the program. It includes suggestions for strengthening these aspects in the future. Chapter 3 addresses issues that need to be confronted if Japanese technology and industry management is to emerge as a viable academic specialization for engineering and management students. Chapter 4 discusses the need for greater industry involvement if the program is to meet Congress' objectives. Chapter 5 discusses how the total program could be strengthened through much closer coordination among the individual awardees and, in the longer term, through cooperation with other campuses and organizations by using computer networks and other appropriate technologies. Finally, Chapter 6 summarizes the committee's assessment of the program to date and provides recommendations for improving overall program management, measuring success, and achieving a strong long-term future for Japanese industry and technology management training. Several appendices are also included. Appendices A and B contain the enabling legislation for the program and the latest Request for Proposal used by the AFOSR. Appendix C is a short monograph by Mark Fruin on "Cultural Relativity and the Study of Japanese Management." Appendix D contains a summary of the programs funded in the second round of awards. This summary provides similar information, albeit in condensed form, to that found in the committee's interim report issued in July 1993. Appendix E describes other Japanese oriented organizations and activities in North America. This report is made in conformance to the task statement. It is not a proposal review process, though the committee found that the selected programs all conform closely to their proposals. It is clear that in most cases with one notable exception these programs are weakest in providing mechanisms for participation of scientists, engineers, and managers of U.S. industry and of Department of Defense and Department of Energy laboratories. Nor have these programs been successful in bringing Japanese counterparts to the United States for exchange activities. These areas of concern are not unique to the U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Program. They are typical of so many well intentioned government-funded programs in that the problems or opportunities are controlled from the supply side ( i.e., university/research laboratories) rather than the demand side (i.e., industry and national laboratories). This supply-side thrust is unique to the United States and differs diametrically

x Learning from Japan from the European approach (e.g., that of the Fraunhofer Institutes) or the long delayed Japanese Intelligent Manufacturing System initiative, in which all research contracts were to be directed by industrial concerns. It is ironic that the weakest points of a study of Japanese management methods that has customer input as a critical success factor are determining customer needs in the human resource area and teaching the customers the tremendous value that the results of this program can offer to their organizations. Frank Riley, Chair Committee to Assess U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Training Program

Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations viii Executive Summary 1 1 Introduction: Japanese Technology Management Practices in Context 7 Key Attributes of Japanese Technology Management, 9 Program Objectives, 11 2 Program Assessment 15 Research, 17 Curriculum in J/TIM, 20 Practical Experience, 23 Summary, 26 3 Creating an Academic Specialization 27 Curriculum Development, 28 Faculty Development, 28 University Organizational Issues, 29 Summary, 30 4 Outreach to Industry 31 5 Intraprogram Coordination 35 Snort-Term Coordination Issues, 35 Long-Term Network Opportunities, 36 Summary, 37 6 Conclusions and Recommendations 39 Program Expectations, 40 Future Program Management Issues, 41 Future Program Funding, 44 Conclusion, 44 Reference List 45 Bibliography 46 XI

m Learning from Japan Appendix A: Pertinent Text of the 1991 National Defense Authorization Act 49 Appendix B: AFOSR Program Announcement 50 Appendix C: Cultural Relativity and the Study of Japanese Management 52 Appendix D: Second Round Program Summaries 58 Appendix E: Other Japan-Oriented Organizations in North America 66

Contents xiii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations AFOSR Air Force Office of Scientific Research EAGLE Engineering Alliance for Engineering Education J/TIM Japanese technology and industry management MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology MOT management of technology

Next: Executive Summary »
Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S.-Japan Industry and Technology Management Training Program provides the opportunity for U.S. academics to broaden and deepen their understanding of the multifaceted sources of Japanese industrial success and to convey that understanding to practitioners in U.S. industry and government laboratories. After reviewing the program's progress, Learning From Japan: Improving Knowledge of Japanese Technology Management Practices concludes that a multidisciplinary approach to research, education, and training must be used, and an aggressive effort must be made to disseminate the results to industry. Building a multidisciplinary specialization would provide a framework for research, publications, curriculum development, and continuing education activities. Yet, making this specialization as relevant and useful as possible would require input from industry, and industry must, in turn, be convinced of the value of the program. Learning From Japan recommends that achieving these twin goals--creating a strong academic specialization and ensuring its relevance to the needs of U.S. industry--should guide the future management of the program.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!