Standard Work or Training?

By Al Norval

As I start to introduce Standard Work to teams, I’m often faced with a lot of questions that go like this:

How can I get all the information I need to put down onto a 1 page document?

What’s interesting is that people want to write down absolutely everything about the task and put it into a Standard Work document. This includes not just “What to do”, but “How to do it” and even “Why we do it that way”. What they are trying to do is to mimic their Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs), which are often great volumes of documents buried in a computer system that nobody can or does read.



Why don’t people read them?

Their sheer size dictates they will never be read. Many times I’ve seen a 7 page introduction before the task details. The details themselves are written out in English with no visual indicators, diagrams or pictures. (This is done since the visuals take up too much memory in the computer). Then there is the perfunctory closing pages which gives a 10 – 15 page document on one task. No surprise that no one reads them.

When I’m at an organization, I like to ask to see the procedures and am told – “They are in the computer”. I then ask, can you find them for me and pull them up. After several minutes of trying, inevitably, the person says something like “The systems not responding” or “Somebody moved them” or “They used to be here”.

These organizations forget the purpose behind Standard Work, that is, to reduce waste and variation and to form a foundation for problem solving. Standard work is there to tell us when we can’t meet the standard due to abnormalities in the process. These get surfaced and problem solved by the team so the entire process gets stronger and stronger. The standard work constantly changes over time as the people who own the standard work develop new more waste free ways of doing the work.

Contrast that to large SOPs. Can you imagine the people who actually do the work, changing these routinely?

People also fail to distinguish between Standard Work and Training. The purposes are different although in many cases organizations mix the two together. I like to keep them separate. Standard work is there for qualified team members to use and to improve. A training system is there for new team members; to build their capability and bring them up to speed while ensuring the quality of their work. This is where the “Why” and “How” behind the “What” is critical.

Mixing the two together leads to confusion and to a lack of engagement of people in driving improvement.

Standard Work or Training – they are related but different. You need a system for both.

Cheers

How Standard is Standard Work?

By Al Norval

Are standards like straightjackets? There to limit our movement and our creativity? Many people think so.

In fact, standards are there to help put order into things and thereby reduce the waste and variation in how we work. The key is understanding that Standard Work is the current best way of performing a task. That doesn’t mean it’s the ultimate best way of doing the work. It means it’s the best way we know how right now. As we learn more, we’ll figure out more ways to reduce waste in the work and a new standard will be created. That standard will then become the new least waste way to do the work but again as we identify and remove waste through kaizen, the standard work will change.

Most people can understand the linkage between standard work and the elimination of waste but get confused when it comes to standards and creativity.



I like to think of standard work, like sheet music for musicians. The standards provide the base melody. As people are learning to play an instrument, they need to follow the standards closely but as they obtain mastery of the instrument, they begin to riff on the music and create new standards.

In the words of Taiicho Ohno;

“Without standards there can be no kaizen.”

Standards are the foundation for improvement. They form a stable platform upon which we can experiment and set a hypothesis for improvement using the scientific method. Without a stable base built on standards, we’re just building improvement upon a variable base. Our improvement becomes like a house of cards. One slight deviation and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

Sometimes we can’t follow the standard work due to interruptions and disruptions that occur during the execution of the work. When this occurs, there are two choices;

1. Ignore the cause of the variation and find a workaround
   


2. Signal for help and indicate a problem has occurred
   

Unfortunately most organizations do the former and the workarounds eventually become locked in as the new standard work and the cause of the disruption never gets addressed.

What should happen is that a signal for help goes up. Often this is called an Andon. Help arrives quickly and the standard work is completed and a temporary countermeasure is put in place. The team then goes into problem solving mode and works to eliminate the cause of the disruption so that it doesn’t occur again.

Organizations that understand this know that standards are there to tell us when we can’t meet the standard so that we surface problems. The problems are there anyway, we just need a formal way of surfacing and addressing them or they will become the way we do the work via workarounds.

The key is to make the disruption visible and engage the team in problem solving the root cause.

So, how standard is standard work? It’s standard in the short term but should be constantly changing over time. A rule of thumb I use is that if the standard work hasn’t changed in six months, something is wrong.

Cheers

The Lotus Eaters?

By Pascal Dennis

In Homer's Odyssey, one of our oldest and greatest epics, the Lotus Eaters were a race of people living on an island dominated by Lotus plants.

Lotus fruit, their primary food, was narcotic and addictive, and it caused the people to sleep in peaceful apathy.

The metaphor came to mind as I struggled with the fundamental question:

Why do so many leaders fail to go see what's actually happening?

Why do they avoid the places where value is created, and the people who create value?

It's one of the most common failure modes in any transformation - one that causes economic and emotional misery.

Are we, like the Lotus Eaters, addicted to a powerful narcotic - our screens?

In my view, our various screens - phone, pad, computer - exert an anaesthetizing, narcotic effect.

Why go see when there is so much on your screen?

Data, apps, pictures, videos - all so addictive.



The problem is, of course, that it's always different in the gemba - the real place.

By going to see with your own eyes you engage your whole being - your six senses, your mind & intuition.

Countless leaders have said to me, “I’m so glad we came to see in person. If not, we'd have made a horrible mistake!"

So use your screen, if need be, to orient yourself, to prepare for your gemba visit.

Then turn the damned thing off and get out there.

Cheers,

Pascal

Everything I Learned About Management...

By Pascal Dennis

My wife Pamela teaches kindergarten -- and Lean fundamentals are a big part of it.

Pam has standardized work for basic stuff like tying shoe laces, washing hands, going to the bathroom.

Her classroom is full of excellent 5 S and Visual Management.

Without it she couldn't manage a class of 20 five year olds, including several kids with special needs.

Kids thrive in Pamela's class because they're relaxed.



The classroom is clean, full of bright colors & well-ordered.

There's a place for everything, and not surprisingly, everything is in its place.

Kids know what to expect, and get help with the most important tasks.

(Kids, she tells me, need structure more than anything, except love.)

STW, visual management, 5 S and the like also helps Pam by freeing her up so she can focus on the kids.

(As opposed to looking for stuff, trying to figure out whether a given class is ahead or behind, or dealing with avoidable crises.)

My dear wife even teaches the scientific method in a way that Lean learners would recognize:

In her Science module she asks, "What do scientists do?"

Answer:

"I make a hypothesis. I observe what actually happens. And then I adjust my hypothesis!"

Why do we continually forget the basics?

Best regards,

Pascal

Lean in Government - Part II

By Pascal Dennis

A colleague, who I'll call Anne, returned to work a few years ago after raising her two boys.

She had been a senior leader with an international firm famous for its Lean activities.

As you might imagine, head-hunters beat a path to Anne's door.

Given her interest in health care, she decided to join a world-renowned Canadian hospital.



Its executives had painted a rosy picture indeed:

"We're a cutting-edge organization, a world leader!"

(I should explain that Canadian hospitals are funded by the state.)

Within a month Anne realized the so-called 'world leader' was stuck in the 1970's.

Slow, inert, backward in its thinking and processes. Full of so-called leaders biding their time to retirement.

Turns out, the hospital's reputation was entirely due to brilliant, dedicated researchers -- and not all to the somnambulists in management.

"People who join us either leave very quickly," a colleague told her,"or they stay forever..."

As you might imagine, Anne skedaddled, and now is a leader in a truly world class company.

A happy ending for Anne, but not for our society.

Knowing what I know, I'll never trust the hospital in question.

If a family member has to spend any time there, I'll question every prescription, every procedure.

And yet, I've no doubt the people want to do a good job, and are full of ideas of how to make things better.

If only they were given the chance...

Last time I asked, "How will we engage civil servants in continuous improvement?"

A corollary is, "How will we encourage professional management in the civil service?"

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

Cheers,

A Challenge to the Lean Community

By Pascal Dennis

Here's a challenge to all of us in the Lean movement:

Do we practice what we preach?

Do we practice PDCA at the micro, annual & long term level?



Do we set time aside for improvement every day?

Do we have a personal improvement plan for ourselves?

Do we reflect on target vs. actual and make corresponding adjustments?

Or are we like the doctor who chain smokes?

Or like psychiatrist whose personal life is a mess?

(Do as I say, not as I do!)

We are what we do.

If we all we do is talk about standards, problem solving & PDCA -- then we are all talk.

But if we take time each day for improvement -- we'll become kaizen people.

Let each of us reflect with humility.

The Single Most Important Attribute?

By Pascal Dennis

What's the single most important attribute of leaders at all levels?

What quality do we seek to develop & amplify in all our people, and especially our leaders?

I'd say initiative.

Initiative entails feeling that I can and will make a difference.

(Psychologists use the clinical term 'having an internal locus of control'.)

Much has been written about motivation, of course.

The consensus: we cannot motivate -- we can only de-motivate.

So how do we remove the barriers to initiative, the de-motivators, if you will?

Start by adopting a policy of respect for people, and never waver.

Respect means:

1. Put Safety first,
   


2. Be open and honest,
   


3. To the best of your ability, give team members job security
   


4. Help them develop the skills they need, by doing and getting their hands dirty,
   


5. Give them clear objectives
   


6. Give them guidance on how to achieve them, without telling them how (and thereby taking away their responsibility and opportunity to learn)
   


7. Reward them fairly. To the best of your ability, render to every person "their lawful due"
   

I'm lucky enough to work with some of the world's best companies.

Initiative is their common thread, and respect for people, its source.

Best regards,

Pascal

Fragmentation

By Pascal Dennis

It's one of the most common failure modes in Lean transformations.

Here's perhaps the most important example:

Fragmentation of the PDCA cycle.

One group plans, another deploys & implements the plan.

Yet another checks the plan, and a fourth group adjusts it.

Nobody sees the entire chessboard, so we keep on making bad moves.

Indeed, we don't play chess -- we push wood.

Great Lean companies continually seek to integrate PDCA cycles.

Toyota's famous Chief Engineer or Shusa is nothing if not an integrator.

I remember the Corolla Shusa & his team, visiting our Toyota Cambridge plant year after year.

I had an image of him wrapping his arms around the entire platform.

Thereby, we have a chance at connecting the disparate silos that are perhaps the most obvious symptom of Big Company Disease.

So, here's a homework assignment.

Take a walk around your gemba and assess how well your organization integrates the PDCA cycle.

Are there people that wrap their arms around critical strategies, problems, product lines, value streams etc.?

Are your management processes designed to integrate the elements of PDCA?

If not, how might you improve?