Standardization you are doing it, just not enough.

Richard, we need you to start following and supporting Standard Work.

My immediate response, was no friggin way !! No body is going to control every minute of my day by telling what to do, when to do it and why?

My immediate reaction was because I truly failed to understand the true context behind "Standard Work". Let me share with you what I have learned about Standard Work since my initial reaction.

We all follow attributes of Standard Work. Like most you go to work Monday to Friday and most likely follow the same routine getting there and eventually coming home ... that is Standard Work, we just dont call it that. If we did then like employees new to continuous improvement may confuse consistency with rigidity.

Indeed Standard Work is more rigid so the outcome is predictable, precise and consistent. Many of us are just as happy to support "Consistency of Purpose", where the outcome is still predictable (you arrive at work) but perhaps not as precise (delayed due to traffic or stopping to get donuts for your team)

Next, we often hear that "Standardization" will stifle "Innovation". Well yes and no depending on your role in the organization. Here is where I think Toyota nailed it.

According to Toyota the closer a Team Member is to working on the line then the greater the percentage of their day should follow Standard Work. So for the Team Member attaching the front bumper to a RAV 4 we want it done exactly the same way every time to insure consistency of Fit, Form, Function and Quality of their work.

The further away from the Line a Team Member works then less of their working day should be devoted to Standard Work. For example out Team Member on the line should have 90% of their day devoted to Standard Work with 10% available for Continuous Improvement and Problem Solving. An Area Leader may have 4 hours of Standard Work and a Director 1 hour.

But the design of Standard Work within Toyota does not stop there. The daily Standard work needs to be balanced. This means as a Team Leader it is maxed at 4 hours daily and cannot be 3 hours one day and 6 hours on Friday. Doing the daily balance of Standard Work was trickier than you think, but oh what fun we had achieving it since now we had to incorporate cadence across Team Leaders and others ... but what calmness it finally did achieve.

With less time of your day devoted to Standard Work your remaining time could be gifted towards Innovation, Problem Solving, Mentorship and Coaching. All organizations need Innovation as a fuel otherwise they will stagnate and slowly die.

From the Quality Perspective we also have to endure Standard Work. This Standard Work appears in the form of Policies and Procedures. Here is where I again have a problem with that form of Standard Work. It was drilled into my mind and soul that I will never ever question a policy or procedure unless i was willing to face immediate death. Not very conducive for creating an attitude of Continuous Improvement.

Then a saviour came into my life by the name of Paul Boyd. He said "Standard Work" and Quality Policies and Procedures really carry a negative tone and that they are not negotiable, when actually they are. They may have made sense when they were created but perhaps not now ... so instead let us rename these documents as "Current Best Practice" that way people will feel more comfortable challenging them and offering perhaps a better way. YEAH !!! Thanks Paul . Since then that is what I love renaming them.

Standardized processes are a critical requirement of a lean culture of continuous improvement. Employees who are new to lean are often puzzled by this, since standardization suggests a rigid, unwavering “cast-in-stone” type of process. This doesn’t appear to mesh well with a lean culture of continuous change and improvement.

Standardization and improvement may even be viewed as extreme opposites. This paradox must be resolved to provide clarity on lean.

Let’s begin to unravel this paradox and provide more clarity. For these reasons, companies need to develop and follow standardized processes, regardless of their production methodology.

1. To reduce variability. Whether your plan is to improve the process or not, you’ll still always want a consistent process for everyone to follow to produce a consistent outcome; i.e., a quality product or service on time for the customer.

2. To identify correct versus incorrect. Without a standard, there is no means for comparison. “Correct” has not been defined, so “incorrect,” or a deviation from a standard, cannot be determined. Problems with the current process remain hidden.

3. To enable effective training. Without a standardized process, how can you train someone in a manner that will produce the consistent outcome that you desire? How do you even choose which of the processing variations to train to?

Some benefits of standardization are specific to a lean culture of continuous improvement. Here are three reasons why standardized processes are essential in a lean organization.

1. To have a baseline to improve from. To improve and to measure progress, you must produce a gain from an initial starting point. You need a baseline. Without a standard process, this basic requirement of improvement is missing.

2. To have a single process to focus on. Without a standard—with everyone individually improving their own version of the process—you add even more variations, amplifying the chaos. Predictability is impossible due to the multitude of processing approaches. The resulting variations in time and quality will have negative performance ramifications—obviously not our intent.

3. To have the details necessary to enable improvement. To understand this benefit, we need to consider the process of developing standardization. The typical approach is to break the process down into manageable steps or actions, to make it easier to learn the process and perform it consistently. And then assign details to each step, such as timing and labor requirements that cover who does what and when, how long each step should take and what the expected outcome is.

Breaking down the process enables us to improve the process. It gives sufficient visibility to see where and what to improve—which parts of the process are causing quality issues, taking the most time or adding the most variability. And to examine why the process is needed, where it can best be done, by whom and whether there’s a better way.

When the potential improvement areas become evident, you almost can’t help but start asking questions: Why is this process needed? Where can it best be done and by whom? Is there a better way?

Updating the Standards Is Key

After each improvement, it is critical to update the standardized work and associated documents to prevent backsliding. Standardization locks in the improvement, and the new standardized process becomes the next target for improvement.

Without a new target, the cycle of improvement would either come to a grinding halt or a continual loop of improvement followed by backsliding would result. Progress would not be made. So, if there is no standardization, there is no ongoing improvement.  As Taiichi Ohno, who many consider the father of lean, is attributed as saying, “Without standards, there can be no kaizen.”

This is a difficult concept for our minds to grasp—that standardization encourages change that leads to continuous improvement.

If we don’t understand the need for standardization, it is doubtful that we will develop the discipline and rigor needed to ensure that we continually develop, apply, analyze, improve and update standardized processes. This would slow or halt our improvement efforts, and the variability and chaos would return.

So, spend the time necessary to make sure there is clarity on this critical topic. In a lean organization, standardization is not the opposite of continuous improvement nor a hinderance. It is the foundation and catalyst for continuous improvement.

When you look at Standardization you need clarity around processes but I strongly suggest you also invest significantly in your people and how they manage their required tasks. For example I like to answer all of my e-mails early in te morning, most of my colleagues know that so they also know they could wait up to 24 hours for an answer, while others answer their e-mails by the end of the day. Who is doing it right? ... until we can get alignment just imagine how our speed and accuracy of communication would improve.