Perspectives on Standard Work

In the TPS Principles and Practice group on LinkedIn, I started a discussion by asking “What do we mean by ‘Standard Work’?” At that point, I saw it as whatever you do to ensure that same work is done the same way every time, regardless of time of day, production line, or factory; 96 comments later, my perspective has changed somewhat.

Ensuring consistency is, of course, essential but the tool to do it is Job Instruction (JI) rather than Standard Work. An operator’s complete job often involves multiple tasks, each of which has its own instructions. Standard Work builds on these instructions by specifying how these tasks are sequenced and combined to make effective use of people and equipment.

The main contributors were Len CanootSid JoynsonPeter WintonCasey NgDavid Hayden, MBAAchyut VaidyaEmmanuel JALLASEdward M. WhartonStephen DuquetteErik HagerJoachim KnufPaul Perry,  Cid LiSalvador D. Sanchez, Richard KunstAnders PenkerAndrew Williamson, and Steve Milner. The discussion also cited publications by Mike Rother, Art Smalley, John Shook, and Taiichi Ohno. If you want to see the whole discussion, please check it out on LinkedIn. This post is a synthesis , organized by topic and with illustrations added.

Why ask about Standard Work?

The House of Lean is a common metaphor. I use it sparingly, to make the point that the reason most Lean implementations in the US fail is that they are missing one of the two pillars:

House of Lean in Working with Machines

For this purpose, I don’t need to break down the details of what is in the Foundation or what the Goals are. Others provide many more details about the House of Lean, using it as a map of the whole system, with a prominent place given to something called “Standard Work” or “Standardized Work”:

As we can see, there is with variation in Standard Work  is supposed to mean. The Toyota description of Standard Work, for example, includes no reference to 5S or Visual Management, and explicitly excludes Job Instruction. The house on the right is from the Lean Enterprise Institute’s Lean Lexicon, and lists “Standard Work” and “Separating human work and machine work” as distinct entries but it is exactly what you accomplish with work combination charts, that are part of what Toyota calls Standard Work.

When you look it up on the Toyota Georgetown website or the LEI’s Lean Lexicon, it is about setting, for each operation, a takt time, work sequence, and required WIP, as expressed through a process capacity sheet, a work combination chart, and a work chart that is a layout diagram showing flows of parts and movements of operators between stations. (Click to see in full size.)

This is much more specific than what is meant by Standard Work is most discussions I have seen. I use capacity sheets, work combination charts and work station layout charts wherever you have to choreograph people working with machines, but I would not recommend them, for example, in manual assembly.

I have posted before about the work combination chart, as a powerful design tool for operator jobs, that also serves to communicate the sequence of tasks to operators, particularly new ones who are rotated into these positions. I see them as excellent tools, but it would not occur to me to label them “Standard Work,” because I don’t see any connection with the usual meaning of “standard.” I understand that “Standard Work” is an accurate translation of 標準作業 (Hyojun Sagyo), but I still don’t see a connection.

The following video clip, posted by JMA in Japan in 2009, shows what can be accomplished with work combination charts:


Standard Work and Process Stability

A process is stable if it can produce consistent output at a consistent pace. If it’s not stable, the first order of business is to stabilize it, but I don’t see standard work as the way to do it. You need to re-engineer the process to the point that its capability is no longer an issue and it is repeatable. Documentation and work instructions are an outcome of this effort, as needed to reduce the improved process to daily practice, but it is not the effort itself.

And the resulting documentation is not Standard Work. Standard Work, in the Toyota lexicon, is about takt time, work sequence, and required WIP, it doesn’t include process capability or even work instructions at the individual station level. It is only about the way you combine them in a line or a cell.

Is Standard Work the Best Known Way?

Most the Lean literature depicts Standard Work as an improvement backstop, a formalization of the improved process for the purpose of preventing backsliding. The following video is a quaint example of a PowerPoint animation used by a consultant to make that point. Note the yellow block preventing the wheel rolling back down:

Standard Work as “the best known way of doing the task” is the improvement backstop view, which I held without questioning it until I saw two articles disagreeing with it, and with each other, by Art Smalley .and Mike Rother. Mike Rother sees standard work as a target to shoot for rather than a backstop. Following is his rolling-wheel diagram:

Mike Rother's standard as a target condition

Mike Rother’s standard as a target condition

Yet another version was included in John Hunter’s review of Gemba Walkabout, and it shows standard work used to block progress instead of helping.


These rolling-uphill diagrams remind me of the myth of Sisyphus, as described by Albert Camus. Sisyphus was a man condemned by the Gods to roll a boulder uphill everyday only to see it roll back down and start over, for eternity. See the following rendition by Marcell Jankovics:

Even if Sisyphus had had a backstop, it does not strike me as a particularly attractive metaphor for Kaizen.

Art Smalley sees Standard Work as a point of reference against which to measure future improvement. Taiichi Ohno does not say much about it in “Toyota Production System,”  but in Workplace Management,  he writes:

“There is something called ‘Standard Work,’ but standards should be changing constantly. lnstead, if you think of the standard as the best you can do, it’s all over. The standard is only a baseline for doing further kaizen. lt is kai-aku if things get worse than now, and it is kaizen if things get better than now. Standards are set arbitrarily by humans, so how can they not change?

When creating Standard Work, it will be difficult to establish a standard if you are trying to achieve “the best way.” This is a big mistake. Document exactly what you are doing now. lf you make it better than now, it is kaizen. lf not, and you establish the best possible way, the motivation for kaizen will be gone.

That is why one way of motivating people to do kaizen is to create a poor standard. But don’t make it too bad. Without some standard, you can’t say “We made it better” because there is nothing to compare it to, so you must create a standard for comparison. Take that standard, and if the work is not easy to perform, give many suggestions and do kaizen.”

John Shook on Standard Work

John Shook published three e-Letters on the subject of Standard Work in October 2009, called “Five missing pieces in your standardized work.”

In Part 1, he describes the goal of having the same work done the same way everywhere as distinct from Standard Work. He calls it “commonization” as a translation of 横伝(Yokoten). Literally, Yokoten means “lateral transfer,” but it is meant about know-how, not people. You invented a better way to do a job, and you propagate it to everybody else who does the same job.

When he discusses the distinction between Standard Work and Work Standards, Shook includes under Work Standards not just the time a task is supposed to take but all its technical parameters, such as critical dimensions, tolerances, etc.

He describes Kaizen and Standard Work as two sides of the same coin. You can’t have Kaizen unless you have Standard Work as the basis for improvement, and a Kaizen project is not finished until its outcome is incorporated in Standard Work. But Standard Work as he describes it —  with work combination charts — is used almost nowhere in American plants that claim to practice Kaizen. This means that some of the following must be true:

  1. The definition of Standard Work is too narrow. The need to specify takt times, work sequence and standard WIP is general, but different tools can be used to do it in different types of plants. A work combination chart, for example, is of limited value in a manual assembly process.
  2. Most plants that claim to practice Kaizen really don’t. In Japan, Kaizen designates small improvements to work methods, conceived and executed by the people who do the work, and US-style “Kaizen Events” are not Kaizen at all. A plant may run 50 Kaizen events per year and still not practice Kaizen. The means of implementing Kaizen include suggestion systems, that exist in many plants with varying success, and small-group, circle activities, that, in the US, are only found in Japanese transplants. As “Quality circles,” in the US, they were a fad in the 1980s; as Jon Miller pointed out in Quality Digest in 2011, circles are still going strong in Japan and in the rest of Asia.
  3. Some Kaizen activity is possible without Standard Work. What you really cannot do without is some metrics of before-and-after performance for the area that is improved, and these may be measured without Standard Work being in place.

The bulk of Part 2 is an example from Shook’s own experience on the Toyota assembly line in Takaoka in 1984. In Part 3, he describes Standard Work through the Purpose, Process and People framework, which he calls 3P. I had heard the “3P” acronym used before, by Shingijutsu people as the “Production Preparation Process,” which is something completely different.

Standard Work versus Work Standards

John Shook gives the following as examples of Work Standards:

  • Assembly – apply xx pounds of torque
  • Processing – heat treat at xxx degrees for x hours
  • Healthcare – provide xx medication at xx dose
  • Coffee – xx seconds for an espresso shot
  • Journalism – a weekly column of xxx words
Frederick Taylor quote

Frederick Taylor quote

Last month, the Institute of Industrial Engineers (IIE) had a conference in Chicago on “Managing Work Standards.” It was exclusively about how long it takes to do work, not about what the work is. It is a sensitive topic because it is associated in the minds of production operators with Taylor’s “scientific management” and his determination to prevent operators from colluding to curtail output, which he called “soldiering.” For all his great contributions, respect for humanity was not Taylor’s strong suit. He probably would have said that this man should have borrowed money from his parents to start a business…

What we are doing when analyzing video recordings of operations is more in line with what Frank and Lillian Gilbreth did: observing processes in order to improve them. The difference in thinking is obvious from just viewing the films the Gilbreths made about bricklaying operations.

The Gilbreths were working to make the bricklayers’ job easier, not to make them exert more effort, but Taylor’s name is better known, and his legacy is a challenge to live down.

I think we need to improve the terminology. Having two different concepts called “Standard Work” and “Work Standards” is confusing, especially when Toyota uses “Work Standards” to mean something other than the IIE. Incidentally, it is confusing in Japanese too.

How about using “Work Instructions” for what Shook calls “Work Standards”?

What is the Scope of Standard Work?

What is the scope of Standard Work? I have seen described, I don’t remember where, as the process as seen through the eyes of a first-line manager — also currently known as production supervisor, group leader, or area coordinator, and formerly as foreman. This is a member of management, with direct responsibility for quality, cost, and delivery by a few teams of operators.

This person sees the work as a sequence of tasks to which operators are assigned and among which they rotate as needed. The technical and human unit processes at each station are the foundation on top of which the supervisor works. This would be why Standard Work is focused on takt time, work sequence and work combinations, as opposed to tolerances and job instruction (JI).

Standard Work, Yokoten, and Revision Management

Also, Standard Work comes in the form of documents that are seen on the shop floor and that people are expected to follow. This makes them official, with revision numbers and approval stamps by stakeholders. Revision management on Standard Work is a whole other topic that I have not seen discussed anywhere.

Is Standard Work a Proper Focus for a Project?

Standard Work is a 2nd tier tool, like Visual Management, meaning that it is part of every project but never the focus of a project in its own right. In a brownfield situation, making “Standard Work” a project would lead you to attempt the precise documentation of work methods that need to be changed anyway, which would not be terribly useful and could bog you down for so long that you never get to do anything else.

On the other hand, if you identify specific dysfunctions in a process and organize a project to fix them, then you want the new and better way to be documented in such a way that it can be propagated across shifts and to other shops that do the same work.

Is Every Problem a Deviation from a Standard?

Peter Winton feels strongly that it is. And this is about standards in general, not just Standard Work. If every problem is a deviation from standards, however, we have an easy way of solving all our problems: let us just scrap the standards… But it would not solve all our problems, would it?

It would solve some problems, because there are futile standards. As David Meier pointed out, when you set a standard, you create an opportunity for deviation, and the need to respond to these deviations. So don’t standardize what you don’t need to.

The absence of a standard can be a problem. I remember a 2-in binder of specs on how to inspect an aerospace part that did not actually contain objective criteria for rejecting a part.

More generally, Standard Work, Job Instructions, Acceptance Specs, etc. are documents that are necessary to ensure a consistent output but not sufficient to guarantee that products will work for customers.

Products that are perfect on our terms may still displease customers, because they are using them in ways we didn’t anticipate. That is a problem, but it is neither the lack of a standard nor a deviation from any standard.

From what you write, I assume that you consider a standard to be an explicit statement of what should be, whether it is expressed as “this bolt should be tightened to x foot-pounds of torque,” or “this bolt should be tightened until the nutrunner’s light goes green.”

There are problems that cannot be expressed as a deviation from standard. As we all know, the proof of a cake is in the eating, which means that it cannot be tested before leaving the pastry shop. You serve this untested cake to your guests and it’s awful. The taste of the cake, in Juran’s terms, is a true characteristic. It is really what you are after but, more often than not, it is something you don’t know how to measure, and you can’t set a standard for.

You can measure some substitute characteristics of the cake, like its diameter, sugar content, or fat content. For these substitute characteristics, you can have specs to deviate from, and, if a cake is out of spec, you know it’s bad. It is, however, possible for a cake to meet all the specs you have defined and still taste awful. Whatever standards you define work as a one-way filter. What they allow you to reject is defective, but you don’t know that what they let through is not.

Philip Crosby

Philip Crosby

Joseph M. Juran

Joseph M. Juran

This was the old debate between Philip Crosby, for whom quality was “compliance to requirements,” and Juran, for whom it was “the agreement of reality with expectancy.” These are different philosophies, leading to different practices. For engineering students, for example, the Crosby approach would equate scoring As on exams with being a good engineer; in the Juran approach, there is more to it.

Is it “Standard Work” or “Standardized Work”?

It is “Standardized Work” that is the questionable translation. The Japanese term is 標準作業 (Hyojun Sagyo). 標準 (Hyojun) means Standard and 作業 (Sagyo) means work. Google translates 標準作業 to Standard Work and Standard Work to 標準作業. If you translate “Standardized Work” into Japanese, you get 標準化された作業 (Hyojunka sareta sagyo) and more syllables on both sides. I prefer the shorter version.

The same concept is called “Standard Work” by Ohno, “Standard Operations” in the JMA’s ‘Kanban, Just-in-Time at Toyota” and in Monden’s “Toyota Production System,” and “Standardized Work” in the LEI Lean Lexicon and on the Toyota Georgetown website.

If the terms were intended to designate different things, they should be more distinctive. I actually don’t think either one makes much sense because they are too generic and not descriptive. If you hear “page scanner” for the first time, you guess accurately what it does; for “Standard Work” or “Standardized Work,” good luck! Everybody thinks they know what it means, but all interpret it differently, which does not help communication.

Standard Work for Leaders and Managers

David Hayden brought up the subject of Standard Work for leaders, managers, and engineers. I see all jobs as routinely involving a mix of the following:

  • Repetitive tasks
  • Planned responses to events
  • Decision making in the face of unplanned events.

For production operators, it is mostly repetitive taks; for CEOs, mostly decision making. Standard Work, if defined as the combination of takt time, work sequence and standard inventory, is only applicable to production operators. In a broader sense, it can be applied to all repetitive activities.

A team leader in a cell, for example, does production work for about 50% of the takt time, and, in addition, is responsible for

  1. Maintaining the pace.
  2. Relieving other team members as needed.
  3. Supplying materials and tools to other team members.
  4. Keeping records.
  5. Coordinating changeovers.
  6. Coordinating 5S at the end of the shift.

Planned responses are not Standard Work in the strict sense. As far as I know, within Toyota in the US, they are organized under “Change Point Management” (CPM). In Japanese, as Casey Ng pointed out, it is called 変化点管理 (Henkatenkanri). About the scope of CPM, he wrote:

“For change point management such as a change in takt time , the introduction of new members to a  line, preparation to shut down, startup after week-end, resuming production after a power failure, introducing a new product, changing of new version of parts etc. There are all sort of standards which may generally call Standard Work.”

Standard Work and Project Management

Len Canoot asked whether the elements of Standard Work were translatable to project management.

The time it takes to do the work is the process time or the cycle time, not the takt time. In a line that works at a steady pace, the takt time is the interval between consecutive unit completions in order to meet the schedule within the work time available.

Does it translate to projects? It depends what kind of projects. If all your projects are “Kaizen events,” each one takes 11 weeks: 6 weeks of preparation, 1 week of focused activity, and 5 weeks of follow-up. It is a standard process, and you can to run them at fixed intervals in different areas of your plant. Most projects, however, are not reducible to this kind of cookie-cutter approach.

In a more general setting, there are tools you can use to manage a flow of projects, like capping the number in progress, so that participants’ attention is not spread too thin. At the very least, all your projects are either waiting to start, in progress, or finished. Often, however, they all go through a more detailed, common sequence of phases through which you can track them, even though the work required for a project through a given phase may vary.

Does that add up to standard work for projects?

Standard Work versus Standards in general

About the usual meaning of standard, this is what Wikipedia says about technical standards:

“A technical standard is an established norm or requirement in regard to technical systems. It is usually a formal document that establishes uniform engineering or technical criteria, methods, processes and practices.”

That covers the metric system and the internet protocols. Wikipedia also says the following about Standard Operating Procedures (SOP):

“In clinical research, the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) defines SOPs as ‘detailed, written instructions to achieve uniformity of the performance of a specific function’.”

When I see “detailed, written instructions,” it makes me think of the victorian-novel sized instruction binders that sit on shelves in many plants, unread, dusty, and full of obsolete information. Standard is also used in many other ways.

Standard Work and Changes in Takt Time

Anders Penker brought up the issue of the effect of changes in pace on Standard Work. One key reason you set up U-shaped cells, with the operator work area inside, is staffing flexibility. If it takes, say, 5 operators to operate at capacity, you can operate with 3, 2 or 1 operator at reduced rates, as seen below:

Takt time change in cells

Of course, your work chart and work combination chart for 6 operators are not applicable when you only have 4 or 3. But operating at a reduce pace with fewer people is something you can anticipate and plan for. You should have Standard Work ready for these circumstances, and post it as needed.

And there are circumstances where these charts are not applicable, for example when you apply the bucket-brigade method to make custom-configured products. But that is a different topic.

21 comments on “Perspectives on Standard Work

  1. Comment in the Lean manufacturing & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:

    What an interesting approach Michel. Standard is a TARGET condition, right after Deming. Thanks for summarizing all prior discussion, enojed the posting and your simplistic integrated graph/videos. Regards!

  2. Very interesting article. At our company we are currently introducing Standard Work as a transformation project on an assembly line. There have been lots of discussions on what are ‘Work Standards’ and what constitutes Standard Work! The article has me believing we are on the right track, and I have forwarded it for discussion at our next review!

  3. Comment in the Lean & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:

    Standard work means all people work according the same procedure, by the same facilities, have the same quality control standard at the same time, finished the work/products in the same time. Finally all finished work/products have the same level of quality. Because all work/products finished by different people in the same time, so this time can be used exactly for the production planning, producion capacity calculation…

  4. Comment in the Lean & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:

    Standardized work to me is the standard process and time sequencing given to each employee which should all work out as Chen indicated,…… to the same quality performance and production capacity calculation which is reported on a data base OEE performance verses downtime spreadsheet for all to review. Daily input is monitored and can be used as a tool to reach peak performances.

  5. @Chen and Frank — As you can see in the article, “Standard Work” or “Standardized Work” means something different when Taiichi Ohno, or John Shook use the term. To John Shook, what you are talking about is Work Standards.

    I find the terminology confusing and prefer to use “Work Combos” for what they call “Standard Work” and “Work Instructions” for what they call “Work Standards.”

  6. Comment in the Lean & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:

    I have a similar understanding as stated by Michel, we use the terminology Standard Work and Work Instructions. This seems to be fairly common for companies that follow ISO standards. The advantages are the outcomes should be predictable by having controlled processes and if you have more than one shift of production the hand-off is much smoother. Also, in the event of a quality issue, the containment is also easier to control.

  7. Comment in the SME Manufacturing discussion group on LinkedIn:

    Standard Work is a very specific tool that is best used in a disciplined approach. Unfortunately like many lean tools, people use the “lean name” and use the same old shotgun approach. Standard Work is a “go see” tool. When we have a standard work event it is scheduled with the operators of the cell. I teach them first about waste and the goal of single piece continuous flow, as well basics of how to use a stop watch. We then go out to the floor and I help the operators do time studies on thier own process down to smallest detail possible while making notes for improvements and things to be questioned. We go back to our training room document the whole process down to the smallest detail, we then have our benchmark.
    I will train them on customer demand and cycle time targets, changeover time, etc. The operators then tear the process apart reapplying work so that all work is balanced and there is a continuous flow that meets customer demand. In this process we develop all kinds of ideas for improvement both big and small related to everything about the cell. It is great for drawing all kinds of suggestions from the operators. Best of all its the users of the process developing it, making it better. Since the process is what they developed they have personal attachment to it, they truly want it to work, who doesn’t like to see thier own ideas realized and seen as successful.

      • Comment in the SME Manufacturing discussion group on LinkedIn:

        Exactly, secret time study, because I’ve seen short-cuts skipped when people know they’re being timed. (simple thought – I don’t need to make myself a bed; they’ll constantly want shortened/improved). Sure everyone doesn’t think this way, but ‘some’ is enough to skew the results of a time study.

      • “Secretly” is not exactly how we do it. First, we ask the operator’s permission. Then we bring a stepladder so that we can shoot from above, staying focused on the operator’s hands.

        Then we review it with video analysis software, in the presence of the operator, so as to collect explanations, comments, and improvement ideas.

      • Comment in the SME Manufacturing discussion group on LinkedIn:

        We have used video cameras. Always, always, always, we have explained to the operators why we are setting up a camera and how we intend to use the video later. Most often when we were using video it was in efforts to improve longer processes that needed improvements, such as line change over from one product to another including all material, machine, and packaging changeover with multiple operators and departments to capture any lag time between activities.

        When it comes to standardize work for operators building or machining parts I am not a fan of video taping. The main reason is that typically someone goes out with a video camera tapes the process, then cherry picks the fastest cycle of the day, They then use video software to crop out lags and state that the process can be done in only x seconds for a xx% improvement in cycle time! Most of this with no involvement from the operators or consideration for ergonomics, fatigue, etc. It is an awesome tool when used for training, and for problem solving smaller time cycles within a process that are difficult to time, more like a video stop watch.

        I have found the best results using the operators to time other operators. The people doing the timing are ones that normally do the job, timing people people who usually do the job. In doing this we also get input from the operators each voicing what they think is best and what we as engineers/supervisors/managers need to improve to get wastes out of thier way so they can better focus on getting thier job done.

        The other key point is that we don’t time an operator just from beginning to end of thier task with one lump time. We will time each individual task; every walk, wait, pick up and place of every part. Every step gets timed, and gets timed about 10 times so that we can see the variation and opportunities to do things better, and the reasons for the slower times. From the 10 time readings for each task we select the lowest repeatable time, this ensures that the short time isnt a one time only event (or a slip of a stop watch).

        Above all, no secrets. Use the owners / users of the process to develop the process regardless of the tools you use. They will naturally take ownership of it want to make it succeed because they created. Not something a process engineer came up with without ever spending time with the operators or doing the task themselves, which is how it would be perceived by the operators.

      • @Larry — Great warnings about how not to use videos! I see video recording as a superior means of collecting data. It gives you much more detail than the stopwatch study, that you can explore off-line with the operators. And you can record as many reps as you want.

        Of course, this data can be manipulated and misused, but so can stopwatch data.

      • Comment in the SME Manufacturing discussion group on LinkedIn:


        You probably know there are edits, but this is avoidable if you make it clear the time display has to run and the camera never stops.

        It sounds as if you train the teams well. I am surprised they would try and mislead you.


      • Comment in the SME Manufacturing discussion group on LinkedIn:

        Before you even take out the stop watch or video camera you have to establish and maintain integrity and trust. Training is essential to successful lean implementation. Sure there are a million games that get played when you first get started but maintaining the highest level of integrity while dealing with operators and their supervisors always results in this period being brief and you can then get down to the hard work of making lasting improvements.

        I always start out with mapping the job with the operators on a white board or easel, explain set up versus run tasks, personal fatigue and delays, waste. All of this long before we get to doing the actual timings. We focus not on time but on eliminating the waste that saps your strength and reduces effectiveness. Success is measured not in how many minutes you take out of the product but in how many people you get actively working to improve the work. That’s true continues improvement. Time falls to a minimum as a product of eliminating the waste.

  8. My first encounter with the application of Toyota’s concept of standard work was on a cell design workshop organised by Norman Bodek in 1991. The workshop was led by Yoshiki Iwata and Chihiro Nakao.
    Like you Michel I first saw it as the defined standard of activities to consistently achieve the required output. I was told at the time it should be seen as the presently best known way of doing the task.

    I have learnt over the intervening years that it has a more fundamental role in TPS.
    The standard work sheet defines;
    The work sequence to follow. The Takt time. The number of operators required at that TT. The standard W.I.P required to
    enable the process to flow.

    The more fundamental role of ‘standard work’ becomes obvious when we remember the basic goal of TPS is to give customers;
    What they want, in the quantity they want, when they want it.
    To do this we must control our activities in four specific areas; they are Q.C.D.D. —
    Quality. The customer’s requirement is Zero defects. With one piece flow and source inspection with Poke-Yoke devises at every process stage of the standard work cycle, this is guaranteed.—

    Cost. With one piece flow and labour and material numbers precisely defined, cost are reduced and accurately controlled at the point of occurrence.—

    Delivery. Running our processes at Takt time guarantees we match the customer demand rate. One piece flow gives the ability to produce whatever batch size the customer requires. —

    Delight. We can now ‘Delight’ our customers by giving them;
    Defect free products, delivered on time and in full. (0.D.O.T.I.F).

    We talk about QA (quality assurance). But standard work also gives us CA (cost assurance) and DA (delivery assurance). With these three in place we achieve our ultimate goal which is DA (assuring the Delight of our customers).
    It is upon the second D that the survival of your organisation depends.

    Q, C and D are the routine dimensions of customer Delight and are supported by standard work.

    But ‘Delight’ for our customers has three other dimensions; P, S and E. — P – Product. The physical product you provide. (Q, C, D).—
    S – Service. The service you provide to support the product. (Sometimes service is the product).—
    E – Experience. The physical and emotional experiences customers can enjoy in all their contact with your organisation. This must cover all the stages from finding, acquiring, using, maintaining and finally disposing of your product.

    If the total experience of doing business with you is ‘Delightful’, it should ensure they will want to purchase the replacement from your company. .
    To win the global business battle you must provide the highest values of QCDD and PSE available in your industry. To ensure your future survival you must be improving them faster than any existing or future competitor from any industry. (Remember the Swiss watch industry. They thought their competitors were other mechanical watch manufacturers, not the Japanese electronics industry. This is a good example of companies not being aware of the technology bottlenecks they have. Are you watching for yours? Your standard work should include these activities).
    When talking about ‘valuable ideas’ we should remember Edison’s warning;
    “The only value in an idea is in the using of it”.
    To keep us in touch with our humanity, we must always remember that the most ‘valuable’ things in our lives are the people we share it with.

  9. Comment in the Lean & Kaizen discussion group on LinkedIn:

    I teach that Standard Work is a very specific form of standardization. Below is a definition extracted from a 14-page PFD I offer as part of a free Lean guide.

    “…Standard Work definition: Standard Work is a formally defined and documented process to produce at a specified pace. Standard Work has three main components:

    1. It is balanced to the takt time.
    2. It specifies standard work-in-process (WIP).
    3. It defines the sequence of operations for a single operator.”

    Without all three components, it is just a standardized process.
    Final thought: It is Ironic that a term with ‘Standard’ in can be so confusing.

  10. Comment in the Lean CEO discussion group on LinkedIn:

    Michel, Many people miss the fact that the purpose of Standard Work is to reduce waste. The purpose of most existing manufacturing standards is to adhere to specifications to make a quality product.

    Both are required to satisfy the customer.

  11. Michael thank you for sharing this great information. in my previous jobs as a Plant Manager in CHRYSLER we used a lot the Muri, Mura , Muda analysis to improve the standardization and the workstation optimization. also I agree with you, we started to use video to see and also being able that many more eyes can see where are the opportunities for improvement. the greatest winners are quality and efficiency. and also reduce the time to do a good root cause analysis.

  12. Pingback: About Frederick Taylor and “taylorism” | Michel Baudin's Blog

  13. Pingback: JSO Software | Jeremy Somer

  14. Pingback: A Conversation With Philip Marris about Working with Machines | Michel Baudin's Blog

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *