Home > The Lean Post> Standardized Work is a Goal To Work Toward, Not a Tool to Implement
The Lean Post
Sharing how the world is making things better through lean.

Standardized Work is a Goal To Work Toward, Not a Tool to Implement

by Jeffrey Liker
January 5, 2021

Standardized Work is a Goal To Work Toward, Not a Tool to Implement

by Jeffrey Liker
January 5, 2021 | Comments (7)

Standardized work is foundational to the Toyota Production System, yet remains one of the most misunderstood principles to outsiders. It is crucial to understand the true purpose of this foundational practice. Standardized work in the context of the Toyota Way refers to the most efficient and effective combination of people, material, and equipment to perform the work that is presently possible. “Presently possible” means it is today’s best-known way, which can be improved.

Like so many organizational practices, Toyota has turned the practice of standardized work on its head. In the early days, armies of Tayloristic industrial engineers roamed the Standardized work refers to the most efficient and effective combination of people, material, and equipment to perform the work that is presently possible.factory, timing workers and imposing on them “the one best way,” which led to performance standards they were judged against. It was coercive, and workers and unions fought against it or used it to place a cap on the work pace. Toyota turned standardized work on its head and made it a tool for work groups to control and improve their work. In Paul Adler’s terms, it became part of “enabling bureaucracy” rather than “coercive bureaucracy.” Rather than forcing rigid standards that can make jobs routine and degrading, at Toyota, standardized work is the basis for empowering workers, sharing ideas for improvement, and driving innovation in the workplace.

The critical task for standardized work is to find that balance between providing employees with rigid procedures to follow and providing the freedom to innovate and be creative in consistently meeting challenging targets for cost, quality, and delivery. The key to achieving this balance lies in the way people write standards, as well as who contributes to them.

First, the standardized work must be specific enough to be a useful guide, yet general enough to allow for some flexibility. Repetitive manual work can be standardized to a high degree by detailing sequences of steps and times. On the other hand, it would not make sense in engineering to specify a step-by-step way of performing the work. There are general plans with milestones, and then technical information about the product that appears in engineering checklists. For example, knowing how the curvature of the hood of a car will relate to the air/wind resistance of that body part is more useful than dictating a specific parameter for the curve of all hoods. In product development, this is often represented as trade-off curves.

Using standardization at Toyota is the foundation for continuous improvement, innovation, and employee growth.Second, the people doing the work are in the best position to improve the standardized work. There is simply not enough time in a workweek for industrial engineers to be everywhere writing and rewriting standards. Nor do people like following someone’s detailed rules and procedures when they are imposed on them. Imposed rules that are strictly policed become a source of friction and resistance between management and workers. However, people happily focused on doing a good job appreciate getting tips and best practices, particularly if they have some flexibility in adding their own ideas. In addition, it is very empowering to find that your team is going to use your idea as a new standard. Using standardization at Toyota is the foundation for continuous improvement, innovation, and employee growth.

In her book Steady Work, author Karen Gaudet shared that she learned about standardized work at Starbucks, giving a very different picture from the Tayloristic view of people as erratically functioning robots:

“Humans just are not hardwired for repetition, it seems. And in service industries, quality human contact is central to the work. Human contact and standardization can seem like oil and water. But here is the truly important discovery from our observations: when task standardization is adopted and steady work cadences are achieved, people are freer to do the satisfying work of making human connections. When work tasks are both repeatable and rote, managers, executives, and frontline baristas all have more space in their lives to chat a little, to ask questions, and to listen to others.”

I think the problem with how many organizations use standardization results from our old nemesis, the mechanistic perspective. When the organization is viewed as a machine, then standardized work is a tool that is intended to make it a better machine. The figure below presents a common graphic in lean training that shows standards as backstops. You figure out the best-known way to do the job, write out the worksheet, teach it, and then shove the standardized work in place to prevent the process from slipping back. This approach ignores the fact that it is the person who can slip back, not the process. People have a way of doing the work they are comfortable with, and developing any new habit takes repetition—and practice.

 

The following figure presents a more dynamic, fluid view of standardized work that recognizes the time and effort required for humans to learn a new way of doing things. In this case, I used the model of improvement developed by Mike Rother that is part of Toyota Kata. Kata are ways of doing things in the martial arts that you have to practice repeatedly with a coach to develop the skill and reduce variation. Kata also form the basis for job instruction training, practicing small pieces of the job repeatedly with a coach. The ideal state is to have standardized work that is practiced consistently by people, coupled with step-by-step improvement through rapid PDCA cycles. The next level of performance can be thought of as a “target condition” that people need to strive for. You do this by experimenting with different methods for doing the work, and then when a performance threshold is achieved, you document the process and teach it as the best-known way at that time. You turn the standardized work document into consistent behavior through job instruction training, which develops the new habits through repetition. Then the work group starts on the next lap with the next target condition (level of performance), experimenting and finding a better way. In this way standardized work and continuous improvement become two sides of the same coin.

Standardized work can be an ugly thing in the hands of control-oriented bureaucrats and a beautiful thing when it enables creativity and continuous improvement. Enabling bureaucracy takes more effort, but it is worth it.

(This article is adapted from Jeff's recently published The Toyota Way 2nd Edition: 14 Management Principles from the World's Greatest Manufacturer.)

Search Posts:
Creating Level Pull
By Art Smalley
Lean Thinking, 2nd Edition
By James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones
Was this post... Click all that apply
HELPFUL
56 people say YES
INTERESTING
59 people say YES
INSPIRING
48 people say YES
ACCURATE
36 people say YES
Related Posts
7 Comments | Post a Comment
Matt Long January 05, 2021
4 People AGREE with this comment

Thanks for the article and perspective on Standardized Work, Jeff!  It is very consistent with what we learned from our TSSC coaches.  They taught us that achieving a good standardized work condition is one of the hardest things to do because it requires diligence, effort and the more improvement you make with the team, the more opportunities you see!  It's not something you do once and walk away thinking you are done!



Reply »

Prateek Vasisht January 05, 2021

Great post Jeff and interepreting standard work as a dynamic concept is a great insight. Thanks for sharing.



Reply »

Eduardo Martinez January 05, 2021

Great article Jeff! Thanks for sharing these insights as always



Reply »

C R Maitra February 02, 2021

Jeff, thanks for the very interesting article. 

In my opinion, changing the paradigm from “coercive bureaucracy.” to “enabling bureaucracy” is an extremely difficult task in some organisation.

Even when the "Culture" of the org is good, workers union, takes it as a threat for obvious reasons.

In many cases, there are multiple 'workers union' in a company, and things get more complicated for finding better & better ways involving workmen.

Your views please.

Warm regards,

C R Maitra



Reply »

C R Maitra February 02, 2021

Jeff, thanks for the very interesting article. 

In my opinion, changing the paradigm from “coercive bureaucracy.” to “enabling bureaucracy” is an extremely difficult task in some organisation.

Even when the "Culture" of the org is good, workers union, takes it as a threat for obvious reasons.

In many cases, there are multiple 'workers union' in a company, and things get more complicated for finding better & better ways involving workmen.

Your views please.

Warm regards,

C R Maitra



Reply »

Jason February 03, 2021

I work primarily in Job Shop environments.  Most people think that standard work is unachievable due to the variations in product.  However, I would argue that it is not only acheivable, but even more important than in continous manufactuing.  It just tends to look different.
https://www.jobshopleanmanufacturing.com/standard-work.html

In particular your thesis that it is a process is spot on.  The best answer today is not always the best answer for tomorrow as our business changes.  Your standard work should grow with your business.

Also, as you noted, you have to have some flexiblity.  Rigid standards just don't hold up over time in the made-to-order world.  We have to be flexible enough to adapt, yet still provide the structure that standard work provides.

 



Reply »

Brion Hurley February 08, 2021

Good article, I like the idea of working to a target condition, then resetting everyone on the new standard



Reply »

Search Posts:
Creating Level Pull
By Art Smalley
Lean Thinking, 2nd Edition
By James P. Womack and Daniel T. Jones
Avoid the Costly Work of Rework
Bad People or A Bad Process?
Beware the Comforts of Waste
Big Problems? Start Small
Please include links as plain text URLs only. Do not copy and paste directly from a web page or other document. Doing so may pick up additional HTML that will not function here.
URLs will be converted to functioning links when your comment is displayed on the site.
Here's an example:
See this article for more details: https://www.lean.org/whatslean