Probably. But I would suggest that work standards are a way of regulating or controlling the behaviour of those lower down the pecking order; those “below the salt”. Lean and Lean consultants have not found a way of regulating leadership behaviour for the better. Perhaps it is hard, but I suggest there are ways by which the leader, like Caeser’s wife, is seen to understand the importance of standards by voluntarily regulating his or her behaviour. For example, some of the Lean tools could be applied to leaders and managers: Kamishibai Boards which are publically displayed so everyone knows where he or she is.

Then there is the wider definition of standards which should address the minimum levels of skill that should be achieved by anyone who is responsible for the well-being and development of others. There is some whispering in the Lean galleries about mentoring and coaching that should be brought centre stage. Can the CEO or the first-line supervisor demonstrate a world-class (the minimum) ability to coach someone else with their change proposal in the form of Toyota’s A3? Can they do this regularly, say to the tune of 10-20 every year? If they cannot, then there is a need for a standard or for the person to be replaced.

A sheet of pictures of the high-level steps will suffice for very long cycles over many days or for a very high mix/low volume facility.

Jobs such as maintenance should have check sheets of a preventative nature at critical timeframes. Involve equipment manufacturer reps and process engineers to ensure nothing is overlooked on the check sheet. Review breakdown data trends to guide timing/frequency and areas to check. Make sure it is reviewed to ensure it is being followed. One maintenance Supervisor I knew used to take apart a few pieces of machinery, i.e., panels, and place a small piece of paper with the word “coke” written on it. He then told his people if they brought him the piece of paper, he would give them what it said. This is how he ensured critical checks were being performed (or not).

Process engineers should have engineering change logs and boundary samples.

No “standardized work” documentation needs to exist if many things a person does have individual standards, i.e., the proper way to label secondary containers, a picture in a conference room showing how it should be left, a visual JSA, One-Point Lessons, or other activities guided by policies.

If resources are an issue, start by borrowing a standard from somewhere else and modifying it as necessary. Ask vendors and supplier reps for help in establishing a standard. Ask your connections on Linkedin. Some state agencies provide this kind of service for free, i.e., https://www.okalliance.com/. Ask the person doing the job to write down the key steps in sequence, with a time for each step.

One of the reasons there are so many meetings at many companies is due to a lack of standards – primarily the reason they call a meeting – to get everyone’s input or buy-in before something is done. If a standard existed, they wouldn’t need a meeting – they could refer to the standard and get on with their life.

Everything should have a standard (if you want to have a sane, productive, and more satisfying work life).

Your article touches on reasons why this is a challenge for us, so thanks again.

Best Regards,
Brandon