Abstract

This paper outlines some differences between the American and Japanese approaches to R&D management and suggests future trends. Data from a comparative study of U.S. and Japanese factories is used to evaluate supposed differences. Japanese factories were found to invest comparatively more in employee training, include more group processes, such as quality circle, and receive more suggestions per employee than American factories. Innovation is also evaluated with available evidence suggesting that the rates are higher in the Japanese than American plants included in the samples. However, there seems to be a slight convergence in R&D management strategies in the two nations; American industry appears to be placing greater emphasis on quality enhancement and cost reduction in manufacturing, coupled with a revitalized attempt toward more participative management styles. Japanese industry seems to increasingly emphasize new product development coupled with an exploration of Western approaches to the management of R&D staff as individual professionals.

Keywords

Product (mathematics)Convergence (economics)Quality (philosophy)ManufacturingMarketingBusinessOperations managementManagementEngineeringEconomicsEconomic growthMathematics

Affiliated Institutions

Related Publications

Industry 5.0—A Human-Centric Solution

Staying at the top is getting tougher and more challenging due to the fast-growing and changing digital technologies and AI-based solutions. The world of technology, mass custom...

2019 Sustainability 1352 citations

Publication Info

Year
1985
Type
article
Volume
EM-32
Issue
2
Pages
78-83
Citations
45
Access
Closed

Social Impact

Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions

Citation Metrics

45
OpenAlex
0
Influential
32
CrossRef

Cite This

Frank M. Hull, Jerald Hage, Koya Azumi (1985). R&D management strategies: America versus Japan. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management , EM-32 (2) , 78-83. https://doi.org/10.1109/tem.1985.6447585

Identifiers

DOI
10.1109/tem.1985.6447585

Data Quality

Data completeness: 77%