Home > The Lean Post> Foolish Consistency or Meaningful Standard Work?
The Lean Post
Sharing how the world is making things better through lean.

Foolish Consistency or Meaningful Standard Work?

by Grant Greenberg
January 22, 2014

Foolish Consistency or Meaningful Standard Work?

by Grant Greenberg
January 22, 2014 | Comments (5)

One of the more important lean concepts is “standard work”. Time and time again, I see problem solvers apply interventions based on a solid root cause analysis only to find a lack of improvement at the end of a P/D/S/A cycle. When this happens, one can ask “why?” 5 times if they wish, and hopefully recognize that there is a central root cause that must be addressed first in most every scenario: standard work.

As a wise lean practitioner once noted to me during a visit to the University of Michigan Chelsea Health Center (where I was Medical Director): “Don’t expect any improvement if there is no standard work.” When I heard that, I wrote it on a whiteboard on my office door. It sat there for years as I struggled to truly understand what it meant.

In any setting, if you’re going to use lean principles, the true experts in any given process are those who are closest to the source. If separate groups, with unique personalities, work styles, and work environments are given the same problem to solve, they will come up with different solutions. What may work for one set of people in one setting may be a complete failure in another location. Hence, effective problem solving relies on unique (and variable) solutions. So, here is my conundrum: standard work in one area is important, yet non-standard work in different areas also seems to be a viable and logical outcome of good lean problem solving.

How can organizations develop standard work and still rely and value the creativity and effectiveness of local problem solving which inevitably is tailored to the individual level? It took me a while to come up with a an answer to this question, let alone a simple one. It came from an unexpected source: a lecture at a national meeting on utilizing an electronic health record. I don’t recall the name of the lecturer, and the topic of the lecture is not important. But at the end of the talk, an audience member asked the speaker this question: “What you said is well and good, but how do I get the staff, doctors, and nurses at my hospital to make the types of changes required to have success?”

The speaker gave a brilliant answer. He said, “I assume you are a leader in your organization? Then LEAD. Just LEAD.” The speaker shook his head, as if astonished this wasn’t obvious to everybody already, and moved on to the next question.

In this moment, I found the answer to my conundrum, but I didn’t recognize this until I was at an amusement park with my four daughters. My youngest, age 4, was excited to drive a gasoline powered car around a racetrack. At 4, she could be just like her daddy and drive like he does in rush hour traffic! I let her take the wheel without hesitation (and with a camera on hand to capture the moment of course). I knew that it wouldn’t matter how she maneuvered the vehicle because the road was engineered with a strip of metal that insured that the car would go exactly where it was supposed to without risk of going astray. I realized, my 4 year old was a frontline worker. She could problem solve how to turn the car wherever she wanted and was oblivious to the reality of the systemic limits. The chief engineer laid the path that ultimately had to be followed, albeit in the unique, zig zaggy manner of a 4 year old driver. 

If you’re a leader of an organization, you need to lead. You set the track, you engineer the framework and direction, the vision, or (if we want to use lean terms) the high level value stream. Team members are free to vary within that framework. If as a leader, you engineer the systems appropriately, vehicles stay on track with local variation superimposed on a larger framework of standard work. 

Now I know: standard work is essential, as is “non-standard” variation. But both only function well if senior leaders have developed a shared vision and framework that can truly support the variation which is the key to any successful, truly living organization. 

The views expressed in this post do not necessarily represent the views or policies of The Lean Enterprise Institute.
Keywords:  leadership,  management,  strategy
Search Posts:
Seeing the Whole Value Stream
By Dan Jones and Jim Womack with D. Brunt, M. Lovejoy
October 23, 2013 | 3 Comments
Was this post... Click all that apply
25 people say YES
34 people say YES
22 people say YES
15 people say YES
Related Posts
5 Comments | Post a Comment
Michael Hertz, MD, MPH January 22, 2014
2 People AGREE with this comment
Well writ, Grant!

Reply »

John Hunter January 22, 2014
1 Person AGREES with this comment

I believe there are keys to making this work.  You need to create a culture of process thinking (without that people don't respect the importance of standard work and chaos and poor results ensue).

In my experience, after that, you need to make sure "standard work" isn't seen as rules written in stone (next to impossible to change).  This is actually less of a risk it normally takes shape in two kind of cultures

  1) complete command and control non-lean style without any of the requirements for a lean organization (respect for people, understanding of gemba, process thinking...).

  2) Early transitions to a lean type organization where tools and concepts are applied a bit crudely.  In adopting standards they react against the tradiation of chaos by writting rules in stone.  This quickly goes away (because the rest of the lean effort pushes in the right dirrection so such a misapplication of standarization can't last) unless the lean effort is merely using a couple tools.  In the latter case there is no lean management system.  Without it misapplication of tools and content is likely rampanet in many ways including the possibility of standard work being done in a completely wrong way: as though the standards are written in stone.


Reply »

Freddie January 23, 2014

can't agree anymore! :D

i also probably get the points of

learn by doing

influence(build and change hte culture) by leading,

sturture by streamlining.

Reply »

Mark Graban January 24, 2014
3 People AGREE with this comment

Yes, leaders need to lead!!

As to "standard work" and "non-standard" variation... a common mistake is to think that "standard work" means "identical work" or that "everybody does everything the exact same way every time."

There's many processes where there has to be room for judgment. There's often "acceptable variation" in work that doesn't negatively affect patients or the organization.

I write more about this in my blog post about "standard-IZED" work being a spectrum.  Toyota tends to use the term (from what I've seen) standardized work and I think there's a meaningful difference there.




Reply »

Ellen January 27, 2014

Very well said and I liked the "real life" example. Thank you I will be sharing thsi with my healthcare colleagues.


Reply »

Search Posts:
Seeing the Whole Value Stream
By Dan Jones and Jim Womack with D. Brunt, M. Lovejoy
October 23, 2013 | 3 Comments
Lean Alone is Never Enough
Lean Roundup: Hoshin Kanri
"But TPS Doesn't Apply to Us...."
5S, Hygiene, and Healthy Habits
A Lean Leap of Faith
A Sensei in One's Own Land
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