Lean tools

Standardized work

In French: Travail standardisé

Standardised work is the best sequence known to date for carrying out a task, written by those who do it, and meant to be improved as soon as something better is found.

What a standard contains

Three elements, and they go together. The target cycle time, in relation to the takt time. The sequence of operations, in the exact order in which they are done. The standard work in progress, that is, the number of parts that must be at the station for the sequence to run.

A document that carries only the list of tasks is not standardised work: it is an operating procedure. The difference lies in time and flow — the standard describes a rhythm, not only gestures.

Its place is at the station, displayed, at eye level. Filed in a binder, it does not exist — and the quickest check consists of asking someone at the station to show it.

What it brings to the person at the station

The first beneficiary is not management, it is the person at the station — and that is what decides the welcome it will receive.

It relieves attention. A fixed sequence frees the mind from the question "what do I do next", and that question consumes, by the end of the day, more than physical fatigue. The gestures become available for what deserves attention: anomalies.

It makes learning short and safe. Training someone on a station without a written reference amounts to passing on the habits of the person accompanying them that day, good or bad, and starting from scratch for the next one.

It protects. A thought-out order of operations avoids the awkward postures, the do-overs and the forced gestures that improvisation reproduces every day. That is why a well-made standard is discussed first with those who will apply it — see also the place of the standard in kaizen.

Who writes it, and why that is decisive

Written by a methods office and handed to the station, a standard describes what someone believes the work is. Written with the operators, from observation of what they actually do, it describes the work.

The gap between the two is always instructive: the deviations are not drifts to correct, they are most often adaptations to difficulties the office is unaware of. Discovering them is half the benefit of the exercise.

The practical consequence: writing a standard always starts with an observation at the station, stopwatch in hand, and with the question "why do you do it this way?" asked with no hidden meaning.

The common mistakes

Confusing a standard with a quality procedure. The procedure meets a documentary requirement and is written for an auditor; the standard is written for the person working and must be useful to them by the minute. Merging the two produces a document nobody uses and that satisfies everyone.

Imposing a standard without the time to learn it. A new standard slows things down first, then catches up and overtakes. Judging on the first week leads to dropping it exactly when it was about to produce its effect.

On the shop floor — Electronics assembly

Observing three operators on the same station revealed three different sequences, with twenty-two seconds of difference in cycle. The fastest included a gripping trick its author had never mentioned, believing it unimportant. It became the standard.

The other tools illustrated by this trade: electronics and aerospace.

Frequently asked questions

Does standardised work apply to non-repetitive tasks?

Partly. A one-off task cannot be standardised, but its recurring components can: preparation, checks, closure. In office work, it is rather the checkpoints and the deliverables that are standardised than the complete sequence.

Does standardising not stifle initiative?

It is the most common fear, and the opposite happens when the standard is well run: without a common reference, a good idea stays in its author’s head and disappears with them. The standard is what allows an improvement proposed by one person to benefit everyone.

How often should it be updated?

At every improvement retained, without waiting for a periodic revision. An annual revision cycle produces standards that lag behind reality eleven months a year, and that is what makes them stop being read.

What is the link with takt time?

Takt time gives the pace that demand imposes; standardised work organises the operations to hold it. A standard whose cycle time exceeds the takt time signals that the station cannot keep up — it is one of the first deviations a balancing chart reveals.