The Joy of Standards

The message from Toyota#s chief engineer Taichii Ohno that “without standards there is no improvement”  is one of the hardest to get across to the teams when introducing Toyota Kata. There is an inherent contradiction in it : how can we say on the one side that we are relying on the creativity of all our team members and on the other side require a strict adherence to the standards? Many people I talked to, all over the world, see standards as the number one tool in an organization to stifle creativity. The argument to kill all arguments about changing something is in most of the cases : “Nice idea, BUT this is not our standard”, meaning : “smarter people than you worked out a standard, so leave us alone and do your job as prescribed”. 

Of course, the Toyota view of the standards is much more balanced, as shown in the other Toyota quote: “the standards are there to be changed”. The vision behind the two quotes is that of a disciplined community, committed to improve their processes but keeping to certain – well – standardized procedures. Whenever a new procedure is even tried out, for the duration of the trial it will become the standard. This means, everyone is required to work according to the experimental new process, no exceptions. If the process turns out to be better than the old one, it will seamlessly become the new standard. If it fails, then we learned something important and we, seamlessly, revert to the old process.

This is nice in theory, but obviously it can only work if there is a culture in the team, to respect the standards. That is, how the two quotes, together, describe a roadmap to a process of continuous improvement. First, we agree on defining and respecting , A standard. At this point it does not really matter what we decide on, the main thing is that we have a common standard across all shifts or departments. Of course, nobody will deliberately define a standard that is describing a bad process, so our initial effort will not be very flawed. Then, once the standard is tested and weaknesses are identified, we come together again, improve the standard, change it immediately and the cycle starts anew.  (If you notice a striking similarity to the PDCA cycle, it is no accident)

I casually mentioned the WE AGREE on a standard. Here, both words are extremely important, and can make or break the standardization process. The team working in the process must define their own standard. This goes against previous experiences in most plants, where an external specialist or a process engineer  with a stopwatch,  defined the standard. This, all too often, became a game between the standards guy and the employees – if you knew that your present performance, being measured, will be cast in iron for ages and your bonus will depend on it, will you show the standards guy all the little tricks you worked out to make your work faster and easier? I know I would keep a reserve for the bad days and so would any other employee.

So, teamwork in defining the standards is essential. Of course, process engineers can help, but it is important for the team to understand that once defined, the standard will have to be respected, and it will become the first thing to look at for everyone visiting their position. This will often come as an unpleasant surprise to the teams, after the agreement on a standard. Lean standards are really expected to be respected, for as long as they are the standard. In many processes we unfortunately developed a tradition where people work the best way they can, and the standards are there for the auditors to see and nod and make a check-mark in their notebook. With Lean standards it is different, the team defined them and also committed to follow them every day, regardless of who is watching them.

This is a big change, but it is not all for the worse. Standards are binding in all directions – if the team must respect the standard – so do the other parties implicated in the process. If we have a common, agreed standard saying that new products will only be trialed in the presence of a R&D colleague, then a delayed trial will either have to be cancelled if it can first run after 17 o’clock or the R&D colleague has to be there even if it is after his/her working hours. If we have a standard first response time for the maintenance, then not showing up within that time is a breach of the standard the same way as any other. So, in the end the standard will give everyone a predictable, simpler way to work. There are better ways to use our creativity then to try to figure out whether the standard will/should be kept this time and how should we work around it.

I recently had a private experience that showed in a nutshell what happens if there are no standards in a process. In two mornings, I had to call a taxi to my hotel, to make it on time to a plant where I was coaching – you may have guessed it – Toyota Kata. From many similar experiences I was expecting the taxi to be maybe a bit late, but to drive to the entrance of the hotel to pick me up  ( this is internationally a standard procedure I think). The first morning, the taxi seemed to be late a bit more than expected so I called the dispatcher, who, quite unnerved, told me that the cab has been waiting for me for 20 minutes.  It turned out, there was a regular taxi station, hidden behind some bushes, and the driver went there and waited for me while I was waiting for him at the entrance. Okay, so, we cleared the misunderstanding, and all was fine.

The next morning, I was smarter. Came out on time, went directly to the taxi station, found my taxi, jumped in and we went to the plant. As I was getting out, I got an angry call from the dispatcher, that my driver is waiting for me at the hotel entrance and why do I not show up?  The cabdriver, who picked me up, was a simple freelancer, who legitimately waited at the station, and was quite happy to take a customer.

Later, as I talked to the taxi company, they told me that some dispatchers have a habit of sending the taxis to the station instead of the hotel, some don’t. A customer, even a regular one, has no way to guess which school of thought the present dispatcher belongs to. The only way decide is to regularly check behind the bush and make sure one of the taxis waiting there is waiting for you, but then rush back and check the entrance ... you see the pattern. There is no way this can lead to a satisfied customer.

So, this is what happens. If you do not have standards you need to have assumptions about what is going on in the process, instead of knowing . Assumptions are known to fail sometimes which will frustrate all involved. In the end, it is not just that we can have no improvement without standards, achieving our goal of stress-free smooth working conditions will remain impossible too. Though many think that standards will make their life harder, in reality implementing Lean Standards has just the opposite effect and brings us one big step closer to our North Star- a waste- and stress free working day.