MMRCDISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
No. 426

Progress of “Genba” Capability and IT/FA Platform:
A Case of the Small and Medium Enterprise
Yokoi Katsunori
Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University
Yoshimoto Tetsuo
Faculty of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University
Manufacturing Management Research Center, the University of Tokyo
March 2013

東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター
Manufacturing Management Research Center (MMRC)
Discussion papers are in draft form distributed for purposes of comment and discussion. Contact the author for
permission when reproducing or citing any part of this paper. Copyright is held by the author.
http://merc.e.u-tokyo.ac.jp/mmrc/dp/index.html

MMRC DP

Progress of “Genba” Capability and IT/FA platform:
A case of the Small and Medium Enterprise

Yokoi Katsunori
Faculty of Commerce, Doshisha University
Yoshimoto Tetsuo
Faculty of Business Administration, Ritsumeikan University
Abstract
This paper argues that progress of“genba (manufacturing-site) capability”utilizing
Information Technology (IT) and Factory Automation (FA) in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (SMEs). It is the big problem how to keep and to evolve genba capability inJapanese industry. For upgrade genba capability, SMEs need to attempt continual“ Kaizen ” activities, but can’t afford to do so from lack of production resource.
Considering this problem, we take up case of company A that made attempt to IT and FA
platform supporting to enhance genba capability. This paper has as its object to examine
progress of genba capability in SMEs according to analyze company A’s case.
Keywords: sites (genba), small and medium-sized enterprises, kaizen, information
technology and factory automation platform, manufacturing (monozukuri)

1.

Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this paper
The purpose of our paper is to examine progress of “genba capability” utilizing
Information Technology (IT) and Factory Automation (FA) in Small and Medium-Sized
Enterprises (SMEs). We take case of company A in illustration of this theme. Company A
made attempt to IT and FA platform that supports building genba capability cooperatingwith vendors from 2010 to 2012.
Without a doubt, build genba capability is required in a lot of Japanese SMEs. “Genba”
means the space and the group who operate an artifact in an environment, in order toproduce an artifact with value (industrial goods and services). Genba afford and create
employment to a large number of people. Particularly, in terms of the number of firms, themajority of genba are SMEs in Japan (For further details of number of small and medium
business establishments, consult The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency 2012). They
hold up many industries (automobile industry, for example). If SMEs can improve genba
capability, this makes it contribute to enhance the level of Japanese manufacturing.
By the way, in general, how can manufacturer improve genba capability? When we
say genba capability, it generally means manufacturing organizational capabilities(Fujimoto 2012). Manufacturing organizational capabilities is level of ability to do things onsite (for example, continually high-productivity, short production lead time). If firms
obtain great performance of QCT (Quality, Cost, Time: Lead Time) in genba, they need to
improve these capabilities. On the basis of the design theory, which interpret
manufacturing as “making design information into things”, it is considered to create agood flow of design information (Fujimoto 2001, and 2004, Yoshimoto & Fujimoto 2010).
According to the idea of design theory, Japanese blue-chip companies (for example, Toyota
Motor) of manufacturing have the following characteristics: They create a smooth design
information flow, making it to improve performance of QCT as a result. From their actions,genba assign high priority to solve the problem occurred in operation for aiming long-termrise of performance. In this way, for upgrade genba capability, it ‘s necessary to attempt
continual “Kaizen” activities ("improvement" or "change for the better” in operation field).
Moreover, from a historical fact of Japanese blue-chip firms, it is advisable that genba
advance kaizen by worker’s active effort. As pointed out by Imai 2010, essence of“KAIZEN” is philosophy that incremental improvement with involvement of workers.
However, the progress of genba capabilities is very difficult. This progress requires
long time, change constitution of organizational culture, need to scientific approach for
Kaizen. In point of fact, SMEs are prevented from building genba capability by particularproblem. They want to wrestle with Kaizen, but can’t afford to do so from constraining
factor. This constraint, as will be mentioned later, is caused by lack of production
resource（resource used for production and development activities）.
Thus, if it is required for SMEs to build keep and to make a highly performance,
progress of genba capability may be clearly described. We think IT/FA is a effective meansof conquest of difficulties in SMEs. Actually, company A brought problem before SMEs
under control by using IT/FA. This paper give a report of company A’s achievements with"new fusion of a Monozukuri (Japanese basic concept of Open Manufacturing) concept andadvanced technology (IT, FA)". So, Let’s us next consider following subjects: what’s the
deep-rooted problem for Kaizen in SEMs? How does it can solve?
1.2 What’s the deep-rooted problem for Kaizen in SEMs?
In many SMEs, there is an the two formidable difficulties :“trigger (chance)” and“persistence” for Kaizen.
To begin with, there is no chance to study way of Kaizen in SMEs. Now, regarding
difficulty of trigger, solution is beginning to be found out though. To cite a plain example,
there is monozukuri instructors run by Yasu City and University of Tokyo. Monozukuri
instructors are senior manufacturing people who have special training in offering
manufacturing knowledge at school. They instruct SMEs in knowledge for a certain period.
They come up with problem, teach the workers how to deal with the problem, and advancea variety of suggestion in workplace. Monozukuri instructor school made by University ofTokyo, and then affected Yasu City. Like this, Yasu City and University of Tokyo works toconstruct system that trigger is offered (For this system, see Yasuda 2005, Yoshimoto &Fujimoto 2010, and 2011). Furthermore, many SMEs face the difficulty of persistently
carrying out kaizen. This constitutes a serious difficulty, and is more trouble than problemof trigger because of issues concerning consciousness among organization member.
Hindrance to Kaizen is following two factors. Both factors are caused by lack of
production resources in SMEs.
Firstly, IT/FA that supports kaizen is of the greatest usefulness, but is not difficult
to introduce and use it in SMEs. Conventional IT/FA system is constructed on a massive
scale, often require a huge budget. Under budget restrictions, genba in SMEs require
IT/FA system that it can be installed and maintained at a low cost.
Secondly, Kaizen absorb some time of its own, and require additional burden on
genba. For Kaizen, it is important to manage to find time that worker try various remedies
and determine working environment. Therefore activity of Kaizen demand different timefrom what they daily work. However, part of this time contains workhour that does notyield added value. Though precise measurement time of the working environment gives
worker good grounding in Kaizen, it does not raise performance (Q, C, T). Consequently,
measurement time is not necessary and sufficient condition to solve the problem in theworkplace. If genba hire a staff for doing Kaizen, this problem will be solved. But suchchoice is an unrealistic notion at the thought that SMEs can’t afford human resource. Thisway, genba in SMEs want to system that establishes continual Kaizen with minimalburden.
Consequently restrictions of production resources, such as lack of human resource andbudget restrictions, are deeply rooted among SEMs. But, it will be hard for SMEs toenhance genba capability by continuous processes of kaizen if above system is not
generally available to them. For example, there is a possibility that SMEs returns to theprevious state after an instruction. Because SMEs are busy in their daily operation, it isdifficult to pursue the problem and measure data of the production process. Accordingly
creating system of persistence that maintains continuous Kaizen is necessary.
Against this background, vendors and we conducted the actual proving test for
creating above system in company A from 2010 to 2012. Below, we focus particularly on
persistence issue, explain company A’s experience in the actual proving test, and thenexamine progress of genba capability.
2. Case of company A
2.1 Company A overview
Let us first look at capital, number of employees and product of Company A.
Company A's capital is about 13 billion yen. Number of employees is approximately 1,800
persons (consolidated, Term ended March, 2012). Company A design, produce and sellhigh-density multilayer printed wiring boards (PWBs) and automated visual inspection forinspection process of PWBs. Company A sell product to variety field: Automobiles,
Consumer electronics, Amusement equipment and so on. A’s factories are located in Japanand China. Company A has five plants in Japan, are making the division of labor between
these plants.
Company A has received the teaching of the monozukuri instructors. The instructor
assisted the “genba a” of the five plants in Company A. PWBs are produced in two ways:
The photographic method and the print method. Genba a make the resist and the pattern of
PWBs by The photographic method. In the genba a, internal failures was affecting the costcompetitiveness. Monozukuri instructors focused on the internal failures and worked on
improving this problem.

But genba a is the thinness of improving awareness in workplace. This was the genba
a's biggest problem. Kaizen was the ad hoc and depended on skill of workers in genba a. In
fact, Company A’s manager said that many improvements were sense of workers, notscientific approach. Moreover characteristics of the failures that convert good product byrework had confusing the problem. Monozukuri instructor’s aim was that genba a canactively improve flow. After an instruction, genba a became necessary to create a systemthat maintains continuous Kaizen. As a result, vendors and we work on actual proving test
for creating this system in genba a. In this regard, we think that genba a is mostappropriate case to consider problem of “persistence”.
2.2 Actual proving test in the Liquid Resist Process
Figure 1 shows the production process that we are targeted at. This process is called“Liquid Resist”. In genba a, liquid resist is the core of internal failures. We decide to target
the liquid resist according to discussion by Company A and vendors. In liquid resist, they
paint both faces of PWBs liquid solder resist ink. They use equipment called “Curtain
Coater” for paint. Process flow of liquid resist is as follows: Paint, Preliminary drying,
Exposure, Developing, Drying (see Fig. 2).
Internal failures were “unevenness of liquid solder resist ink”. Occasionally, effect that
not well painted with ink was caused in liquid resist. Genba a took two approaches toimprove. They attacked task of measuring the changing working environment on the one
hand, and analyzing defective product on the other.
Fig. 1. Liquid resist process

Source: Company A

Fig. 2. Flow of liquid resist process

Source: Company A
2.2.1 Relationship between failures and working environment
Genba a kept a daily record of working environment in written form. The worker
recorded condition by hand, are called “Sagyou Nippou”. But anybody did not exploit
these documents.
Liquid resist is station that produce intermediates of PWBs. Genba a can’t inspect thisintermediates for failure because of product characteristic, and then install inspection
machine in the backend of Liquid resist. Therefore, they took a long time to know the
failure in genba a. After recognizing the failure, they investigate the Sagyou Nippou.
However, since Sagyou Nippou is handwritten, this seeking task is troublesome. Moreover,they can’t bother about such complicated task at busy times of daily operation.
Consequently, when working environment was turning nasty, worker adjusted a condition
to standard for situation. Genba a could not grasp causation of unevenness, and explained
the basis for their question: Why the working environment had changed, what did worker
adjust, were failures directly caused by changing working environment?
To begin with, genba a tried to grasp relationship between failures and working
environment. This task was carried the following steps. First, they converted daily
document into database, and analyzed it. Vendor’s comment and Flow-Oriented Approach(FOA) suggestion helped the progress of the converting materially (For FOA, see Oku, Park
& Abe 2010). FOA is view that IT system of user initiative need for SMEs. One of FOA's
ideas is that worker know better than anyone else for causation of failures. Therefore,
according to FOA view, workers analyze the causes of failure using cause and effectdiagram in genba a. Then, they decided to convert the data in the two indices (temperatureof ink and room temperature) on this analysis. They identified lot number of defective

product by inspection, and then checked variation of environment by database. Second,
they attempted to gather date from liquid resist device automatically. Genba A introduced
following two devices: The device for monitoring temperature of ink, and for measuring
room temperature. These devices are generic and cheap. Vendor supplied genba a withknowledge and know-how about device.
These efforts enhance the prospect for Kaizen and brought about the three outcomes in
Company A. Firstly; they know that failures were not directly caused by changing
environment (temperature of ink and room temperature). However, fluctuation of working
environment is not good. An increase in temperature of ink and room would affect theiroperation considerably. Therefore, they need to solve this fluctuation. Secondly, they get
knowledge for which they can practical application in another production process andequipment. In other words, they became possible to deal scientifically with the matter that
occurred in genba using data. Furthermore, We note the fact that they decided to introduce
these automation device after careful consideration, did not put a higher priority on the
introduce programs. Finally, it points out the importance, they are likely to afford time for
Kaizen. We think that automatic gathering date produced a margin for improvement.
2.2.2 Understanding the “core” about failures
Next, genba a analyzed the causes of defective product rigorously under a electron
microscope, and finally found out the “core” about failures. As a result of the element
analysis, then they understood clearly what “core” is. “Core” is made from an ingredient α.
In brief, this infusion brings about dispersion of outturn. They discovered an ingredient α
under an electron microscope but not stereomicroscope. However, any material that use in
the liquid resist did not include an ingredient α. Therefore, they arouse following
questions: Why is an ingredient α mixed into surface of PWBs, Where an ingredient α isbeing introduced?
To solve these question, genba a began to explore front-end process, and airflow inprocess of liquid resist. Moreover, to comprehend airflow, they invest the device formeasuring particle and are analyzing a problem. Of course, they adopted the same methodwith regard to temperature of ink and room temperature as with the device for measuring
particle. In brief, this device was generic and cheap. As a result of this effort, they
understood that contamination was due to dust resulting from degradation of heatinsulating material in the pretreatment equipment. In addition to keep out the dust, they
put heat-resistant tape over heat insulating material, and did maintenance on equipment.
As shown above, Kaizen, which started with the certain process, prompted aninvestigation of other process and equipment. They conducted these efforts from theautumn of 2010 to the spring of 2011. Next, we will confirm their efforts in the springtimeof 2012 from the summer of 2011.
2.2.3 Creation of the prototype of IT/FA platform
After introducing three devices (temperature of ink, room temperature and particle),
genba a furthered Kaizen. They took following two approaches to problem solving.
First is detailed consideration of changing environment. Genba a brought in additional
devices for measuring room humidity, and for monitoring viscosity of ink. Consequently,
they became possible to understand the various aspects of the working environment.
Moreover, they reviewed the way management of each instrument. An outstanding
example of this effort is seen in monitoring temperature of ink.
As stated previously, in coating machine, they gave both faces of PWBs — solder side
and component side — coat of liquid solder resist ink. Because of mechanical efficiency, it
frequently happens that time to paint solder side and component side are different, insteadof coating both side at the same time. The working environment varies, according to thetime of day. Then, the following situation occurs: failures are found in solder side on the
one hand, and on the other component side is not defective. But, genba a has managed todivide solder side and component side. Accordingly, they construct a system toautomatically record them separately, and then are able to fully grasp working
environment.
Second is expansion in the range of activities for problem solving. Genba a create a
prototype of the system that maintain and share collected data from each device. We callthis system IT/FA platform. Let us consider effectiveness of IT/FA platform by confirming
how they made this system in order of time.
For a start they compiled the data gathering from five devices (temperature of ink,
room temperature, particle, room humidity, and viscosity of ink) in a server computer on abatch-by-batch basis. On the other hand, similar to five devices, inspection results are sent
to a server computer on a batch. Consequently, on server, they can know the working
environments that produce lot including defective. Next, they shared these data (fivedevise and inspection results) with genba member and insider. IT/FA platform use genericsoftware to link five devise to inspection results, which means that they take control of it
autonomously. If they add additional facility as Kaizen advances, it is connected to theserver computer whenever circumstances require (See figure 3 “Real-time information
sharing in company”). In order to analyze and improve the problem, all members wereable to take advantage of the date and advanced an opinion.
Finally, they linked server computer to the information system at headquarter (Seefigure 3 “Real-time information sharing in genba”). As a result, they give out data
promptly to middle office and top management, and involve these people in problem
solving. Kaizen is company-wide subject as well as genba a’s subject in company A. Thus,
actual proving test came to a close.
In this way, they tried everyone within the organization can see the internal data incompany. During the development of IT/FA platform, the vendor’s knowledge gained
form one’s own experience has greatly contributed. Genba a quickly build this IT/FA
platform by the utilization of vendor’s practical knowledge.
Fig. 3. Accumulate and share internal data
Real-time information sharing in company
Real-time information sharing in genba
Gather and record
data automatically

Process A

ServerExtension of
KAIZEN

Other Process
Or
Equipment

Company
Information
SystemProvideinformation
promptly to middle
office and top
management

Source: made company A’s and vender’s internal data
3. Progress in genba capability
Here, we examine the points for progress in genba capability in SMEs from the effortsof genba a. There are at least two following points: (1) IT/FA lighten load of additional
work for Kaizen, (2) IT/FA platform unify intent among organization member. Below, We
take these points in turn.
(1) IT/FA lighten load of additional work for Kaizen
Kaizen require worker to engage in additional task, such as the measurement and trial
and error. Figure 4 shows relation among workhour and time as measured. First of all, let
us describe span of problem solving as “Kaizen Lead Time” (For Kaizen Lead Time, see
Yoshimoto & Fujimoto 2011). Kaizen lead time is composed of two factors. One of factor ismeasurement time of the working environment. Another is task as follows: Worker

consider a appropriate way to solve problem and a matter under consideration closely
among everyone for workplace, Worker get a clue to improve process by trial and error etc.
It might not improperly be called “Net Kaizen Hour”. This net Kaizen hour is directly
linked to rise in performance (Q, C, T). If Kaizen lead time is the same as ever, net Kaizen
hour increase as more and more of measurement time is reduced (See figure 4 after 1).
Moreover if Kaizen lead time can be shortened, then genba carry out various activity: They
get down another matters for improvement and so on (See figure 4 after 2). That is to say,genba rise number of problem solving.
Thus, in any case, it is important to method for reduction of measurement time.
Introducing automated measuring devise is one of the best ways of doing it. Because of this,worker can play active roles in Kaizen with minimal additional load. Again, in genba acase, they introduce automation device as needed at conference with vendor. For thatreason, they could increase net Kaizen hour, or shorten Kaizen lead time. Then they make astart in the analysis of defective product, and improvement of front-end process andequipment. This genba a case suggest that IT/FA produce a margin to launch front-end
process and equipment.
However, this is not to say that it is only necessary to introduce IT/FA in genba, andmoreover that IT/FA bring about desirable effects such as reduction of Kaizen lead time
immediately. Actually, regarding case of genba a, we think that effect on there’s
subsequent actions was the period between the start of actual proving test and the firsttime adoption of a devise. In this period, they went through the process of considerable
trial and error cooperating with vendor. Accordingly, they get knowledge concerningscientific approach to Kaizen as explained above.
Figure 5 is total process of genba a’s experience. This figure show the approximate
amount of time required to each effort. We know that it takes long time to finish working
on installation of first device, and takes only a short time to complete adoption of
additional programs on the other hand. They verify a number of hypotheses andconsequently acquire the skill of scientific method over a long time.
Furthermore, the cost of devise would change depending on trial and error in thisterm. If genba can narrow down the limits of their problems, they just purchase device of
barebones function, and then hold down the costs of device. As just described, genba a’s
experience can clearly show importance of previous arrangement about introducing
devise.

Fig. 4. The Concept of KAZIEN Lead Time
BeforeKAIZEN Lead Time ( Activity of KAIZEN )Measurement TimeNet KAIZEN Hour

After 1: Raise Ratio of Net KAIZEN Hour

MeasurementTime

Net KAIZEN Hour

After 2: Contraction of KAIZEN Lead Time

MeasurementTime

Net KAIZEN Hour

Source: made Yoshimoto & Fujimoto 2011
Fig. 5. Total process of actual proving test

Source: made company A’s and vender’s internal data
(2) IT/FA platform unify intent among organization member
Considering establishment of Kaizen, IT/FA is useful for creating workplaceenvironment that allows organization member to participate in Kaizen activities. Many
theoretical and demonstrative studies point out some features of Kaizen in Japanese firms

(Imai 1988, Nihonnouritukyokai 1978 etc.). Of course, improvement of operation based on
industrial engineering is common activities in any other countries and regions firms, butcharacteristics of Japanese (called Kaizen), especially in the Japanese blue-chip companies(for example, Toyota Motor), are two; full participation by all the members, and bottom-up
action (Fujimoto 2001). These companies have some tools to instill the conscious of KIZEN
for the achievement of full participation. As an illustration of these remarks, we may takejust-in-time system. In just-in-time system, inventory cutting of work-in-process expose
many problems (loss of efficiency and dead time etc.), and as a result, Kaizen take root in
organization through the solution of these problems. In the same way, IT/FA act as anengine in establishment of Kaizen.
Figure 6 shows development of Kaizen in case of genba a. From precedent, Kaizen thatstarts at the particular process affected another problem through reduction of measurement
time (contraction of Kaizen Lead Time, or Increase in ratio of Net Kaizen Hour). Thismeans that introducing IT/FA bring problems to light, and call on genba to analyze
front-end process and equipment. At this time, knowledge and method obtained in (1)contributes greatly to the analysis of cause. Genba can apply the same basic approach to
improve other problem. As the introduction progresses genba can verify a number ofhypotheses by use of devises. Subsequently, integration of devises into server computerand into the information system at headquarters make organization member share internal
data.
This integration exerts a favorable two influence upon genba. First is physicalinfluence. By use of IT/FA, a cyclical of hypothesis and test can be converted into platform(hardware). With the expansion of Kaizen, platform builds up systematically on genba andoffers more data to organization member. Therefore, everyone identify outcomes of Kaizen
and daily status of production. This brings about a second effect. Second is mental impact.
Everybody in genba and company can find small changes of daily work, such as relatively
small rise in temperature of ink, as above platform. Hence, everyone can talk about thisproblem, and then create favorable atmosphere for everyone to come up with concrete
actions to solve the problem. This platform forms a feedback loop between genba andheadquarters, and therefore unify of intent among organization member. As a result,
Kaizen will be impressed on the member's consciousness.
We tag above Kaizen process produced by application of IT/FA as “The cycle ofprogress in genba capability”. This cycle is the very essence of IT and FA platform ofbottom-up type. If genba keep this cycle in successful operation, according to produce alittle outcome, they can build platform by degrees. By continued repetition of practical use

and enlargement of platform, gradually intense consciousness of Kaizen can be developed
among organization members. This cycle that physically and mentally affect genba exists
as providing “persistence” of Kaizen. Ultimately, performance of QCT will improve.
As a matter of a fact, this cycle closely parallel Japanese blue-chip companies ofmanufacturing actions. As we pointed out earlier, they give preference to improving
design information flow, instead of aiming to better short-term performance. By this means,
it is the same essentials.
Fig. 6. The cycle of progress in genba capability
Introduction automation device
into particular process

The cycle of progress ingenba capability

Contraction of KAIZEN Lead Timeor (and)Increase in ratio of Net KAIZEN Hour

KAIZEN activity expose many problems,
and then spread to other process
and equipment

Integration of devises into server computerand into the information system at headquarter.
Genba create a feedback loop by degrees.

Introduction automation device into
other process and equipment

Genba build IT and FA platform by degrees,
and then assure the persistence of KAIZEN.
As a result, performance of QCT will improve.

Source: made authors
4.Conclusion
This paper discussed issues in progress genba capability from the aspect of utilizationof IT/FA. We regard actual proving test of genba as exemplification that solved problem
under restrictions of production resources (lack of human resource and budget restrictions)in SMEs. The point of building genba capability is that genba run the cycle of progress ingenba capability speedy. This cycle brings about an evolutionary change in Kaizen leadtime or net Kaizen hour. As a result, workers more actively engage in Kaizen. IT and FA
platform of bottom-up type is a most effective means of building this cycle.
By the way, from different viewpoint, this platform may seem like patchiness.
Certainly genba a will enter into the period toward a complete unification of devises. But
we think that function of this platform sufficient to gain foothold toward solving problem

with scientific approach for Kaizen. Therefore, this platform is an introductory model(entry model) for SMEs, which was suffering from lack of production resources. It is forthis reason that we describe IT and FA platform in genba a as the prototype.
By discussing genba a, we can derive concept of building genba capability from theirexperience. However, case about this paper is a solitary instance. Hence we need to explore
other cases, and enrich case study in order to illustrate a concept provided by this paper.
＊ This paper is grounded in Yokoi, Yoshimoto and Fujimoto 2011, and makes a drastic
revision and correction. When we wrought above paper (Yokoi, Yoshimoto andFujimoto 2011), genba a is not entering the termination phase of actual proving test andcomplete construction of prototype of the IT/FA platform. Similarly, in this sense,
progress of genba capability was still in the intermediary stage of development.
Therefore, We think that it is imperative to update a fact, and then reconsider theconcept of genba capability after constructing this platform. To clear progress of genba
capability, we wright this paper.
Acknowledgment
We thank the Manufacturing Science and Technology Center (MSTC), Manufacturing
Management Communication Center (MMCC), Manufacturing Management ResearchCenter (MMRC), Mitsubishi Electric Corporation, OMRON Corporation, Shirai Electronics
Industrial CO., LTD, and QUALICA Inc.
Bibliography
Fujimoto, Takahiro. Seisan Manejiment Nyumon Ⅰ, Nihon Keizai Shinbunsha, 2001.（藤本隆宏『生産マネジメント入門

Ⅰ』日本経済新聞社, 2001）

Fujimoto, Takahiro, Amano Tomofumi, and Shintaku Junjiro. “Comparative Advantage
and International Division of Labor Based on Architecture – Reexamination ofMultinational Corporate Theory from a Manufacturing Perspective ” Organizational
Science, Vol.40, No.40, pp. 51-64, 2007.（藤本隆宏, 天野倫文, 新宅純二郎「アーキテクチャにもとづく比較優位と国際分業：ものづくりの観点からの多国籍企業論の再検討」『組織科学』第 40 巻第 4 号, pp. 51-64, 2007）
Fujimoto, Takahiro.“A Note on the Genba Oriented National Policies”, Manufacturing
Management Research Center Discussion Paper, No. 353, 2011.（藤本隆宏「ものづくり現場発の国家戦略に関するノート」東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター Discussion Paper, No.
353, 2011）
Fujimoto, Takahiro. Monodukurikaranohukkatu - endaka ・ sinsainigenbahamakenai -, Nihon

Keizai Shinbunsha, 2012.（藤本隆宏『ものづくりからの復活

円高・震災に現場は負けない』日本経済新聞社, 2012）
Imai, Masaaki. KAIZEN: The key to Japan's competitive success, New York: McGraw-Hill, 2010.
Original edition 1986.（今井正明『カイゼン —日本企業が国際競争で成功した経営ノウハ
ウ

復刻改訂版』日本経済新聞社, 2010, 初版は講談社,1988）

Kuwada, Hideo. Seisankanrigairon, Nikkan Kougyou Shinbunsha, 1990.（桑田秀夫『生産管理概論』日刊工業新聞社, 1990）
Nihonnouritukyokai. Toyota no Genbakanri, Nihonnouritukyokai, 1978.（日本能率協会『トヨタの現場管理』日本能率協会, 1978）
Oku, Masaharu, Park YoungWon, and Abe Takeshi. “ Integrated Manufacturing
Information System Case Series (1): An Example of Management (FOA Concept) by Field
Principles” Manufacturing Management Research Center Discussion Paper. No.308, 2010.（奥雅春, 朴英元, 阿部武志「統合型ものづくり IT システム事例シリーズ（1）―現場主義による経営（FOA コンセプト）の取組み事例―」東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター
Discussion Paper. No.308, 2010）
The Small and Medium Enterprise Agency. White Paper on Small and Medium Enterprises,
2012.（中小企業庁『中小企業白書』中小企業庁, 2012）
Yasuda, Yuki, “Monodukuri beteran jinzai no instrakutakaniyoru jisedaikyouiku no
kanousei” Manufacturing Management Research Center Discussion Paper, No. 40, 2005.（安田雪「ものづくりベテラン人材のインストラクター化による次世代教育の可能性―企業特殊的熟練の他企業・他産業への応用展開―」東京大学ものづくり経営研究センター
Discussion Paper, No. 40, 2005）
Yokoi, Katsunori, Yoshimoto Tetsuo, and Fujimoto Takahiro. “ Building “ Genba ”
Capability and Sustainable Manufacturing: Case of cooperation small and medium
enterprise with vendor “ ， Design for Innovative Value Towards a Sustainable Society（EcoDesign2011 symposium 講演論文集）， Springer, pp. 655-659，2012.
Yoshimoto, Tetsuo, and Fujimoto Takahiro. “Sharing Manufacturing Knowledge among
Industries: A Challenge for the Instructor School at University of Tokyo”, Manufacturing
Management Research Center Discussion Paper, No.305. 2010.（善本哲夫, 藤本隆宏「産業を超えたものづくり知識の共有：東大インストラクタースクールの取組み」東京大学ものづ
くり経営研究センター Discussion Paper, No.305. 2010）
Yoshimoto, Tetsuo, and Fujimoto Takahiro.“Tyusho･Tyuken Kigyo no Genba Nohryoku
Kohchiku - Kaizen Shien FA･IT Dohnyu no Toriaru -”, Seimitsu Kohgakkai Sohgoh Seisan
Shisutemu Senmon Iinkai 2010 Nendo Katsudoh Hohkokusho, The Japan Society for Precision
Engineering (Seimitsu Kohgakkai), 2011.（善本哲夫, 藤本隆宏「中堅・中小企業の現場能力構築 -改善支援 FA・IT 導入のトライアル-」『精密工学会総合生産システム専門委員会

2010 年度活動報告書』精密工学会, 2011）