T he On e - Day Ex p er t Seri es

PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT

Alain Patchong
PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT
 The One-Day Expert Series
Series Editor
Alain Patchong

PUBLISHED
Implementing Standardized Work: Measuring Operators’ Performance
Alain Patchong
Implementing Standardized Work: Process Improvement
Alain Patchong
Implementing Standardized Work: Writing Standardized Work Forms
Alain Patchong
 T he On e - Da y Ex p er t Seri es

PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT

Alain Patchong

Boca Raton London New York

CRC Press is an imprint of the

Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business

A PRODUCTIVITY PRESS BOOK

CRC Press
Taylor & Francis Group
6000 Broken Sound Parkway NW, Suite 300
Boca Raton, FL 33487-2742

© 2014 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

CRC Press is an imprint of Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

No claim to original U.S. Government works

Version Date: 20131104

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4665-6359-9 (eBook - PDF)

This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reasonable efforts
have been made to publish reliable data and information, but the author and publisher cannot assume
responsibility for the validity of all materials or the consequences of their use. The authors and publishers
have attempted to trace the copyright holders of all material reproduced in this publication and apologize to
copyright holders if permission to publish in this form has not been obtained. If any copyright material has
not been acknowledged please write and let us know so we may rectify in any future reprint.

Except as permitted under U.S. Copyright Law, no part of this book may be reprinted, reproduced, transmit-
ted, or utilized in any form by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying, microfilming, and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system,
without written permission from the publishers.

For permission to photocopy or use material electronically from this work, please access www.copyright.
com (http://www.copyright.com/) or contact the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc. (CCC), 222 Rosewood
Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, 978-750-8400. CCC is a not-for-profit organization that provides licenses and
registration for a variety of users. For organizations that have been granted a photocopy license by the CCC,
a separate system of payment has been arranged.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used
only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe.
Visit the Taylor & Francis Web site at
http://www.taylorandfrancis.com

and the CRC Press Web site at

http://www.crcpress.com
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................vii
Acknowledgments..................................................................................ix

Chapter 1 Introduction........................................................................ 1

Chapter 2 There Is No Panacea!.......................................................... 5

Chapter 3 Training Day...................................................................... 11

Chapter 4 Sharing Black Books......................................................... 21

Chapter 5 Tachinbo............................................................................ 31

Chapter 6 Prioritizing and Executing Actions................................. 41

Chapter 7 Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding..... 49

Chapter 8 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment.................. 61

Chapter 9 Shop Floor Application and Takeaway............................ 73

About the Author................................................................................... 91

v
Preface

THE ONE-DAY EXPERT

The One-Day Expert series presents subjects in the simplest way while
maintaining the substance of the matter. This series allows anyone to
acquire quick expertise in a subject in less than a day. That means read-
ing the book, understanding the practical description given in the book,
and applying it right away, in only one day. To focus on the quintessential
knowledge, each The One-Day Expert book addresses only one topic and
presents it through a streamlined, simple, narrative story. Clear and sim-
ple examples are used throughout each book to ease understanding and,
thereafter, application of the subject.

vii
Acknowledgments
The One-Day Expert series is the direct consequence of my previous work
at Goodyear. I owe thanks to several of my former colleagues, who pro-
vided me with valuable remarks and comments.
I am thankful to Dariusz Przybyslawski and Mike Kipe, who were part
of the team I formed to deploy Standardized Work in Goodyear plants.
Dariusz’s help was instrumental in structuring and tuning The One-Day
Expert series.
I am very grateful to two other former colleagues at Goodyear who, at a
very early stage, believed in Standardized Work as presented in this book
and gave me the opportunity to try it on the shop floor: François Delé and
Markus Wachter.
I am obliged to Alain Prioul, Xavier Oliveira, Pierre-Antoine Rappenne,
and Philip Robinson, who have read drafts and offered valuable sugges-
tions for improvement. I am also very thankful to the editorial staff of
Taylor & Francis for their wonderful work improving the readability of
the initial text.
I express my gratitude to all my colleagues at Faurecia who work with
me to test ideas and actions and critique or support my thoughts.
Finally, and most especially, I would like to give my special thanks to my
wife, Patricia; my son, Elykia; and my daughter, Anya, for their unrelent-
ing support and patience.

ix
1
Introduction

This book is the third on Standardized Work deployment and is dedicated

to methods and tools that help to improve the process.* The previous two
books dealt with the initial steps of Standardized Work deployment, which
consist of capturing the current state. The first book addressed operator
performance assessment; the second one was dedicated to tools that help
capture the current state of the process itself: process analysis chart, stan-
dardized work combination table, standardized work chart, and operator
work instructions.
As stated in the first book of this series, Implementing Standardized
Work (Operators’ Performance Measurement), for standards to really be
sustainable and beneficial, they have to be implemented as part of a sys-
tematic approach that includes many other activities. One of those activi-
ties is process improvement. In effect, Standardized Work documents
alone make little sense if they are not used to foster progress through con-
tinuous improvement. Conversely, any improvement that is not consigned
in standards might become elusive, difficult to convey, and daunting to
assess. To summarize in a few words: Process improvement needs stan-
dardization, and standardization needs process improvement. In addition
and most important, there is no better motivator than success. Process
improvement results produce the quick wins† that are needed to keep
momentum in the team and create opportunities to celebrate. As with any
continuous improvement activity, implementing Standardized Work may
be a long march. People will not go a long way if they are not convinced

* The first and the second books are, respectively, Implementing Standardized Work: Operators’
Performance Measurement and Implementing Standardized Work: Writing Standardized Work
Forms.
† This is what John Kotter calls short-term wins in his book Leading Change (Harvard Business
School Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996).

1
2 • Implementing Standardized Work

that it is worthwhile. Without quick wins, most people will withdraw,

and some may eventually become resistant. With the materialization of
process improvement results, people start to see positive change, which
is absolutely instrumental to keep the team motivated. Ultimately, this
helps to cover the distance necessary to deliver the long-term benefits of
Standardized Work: improved safety, better quality, higher productivity,
reduced costs, and increased team morale—all of which are the founda-
tion of operational excellence.
The main concern of the current book is how to generate the aforemen-
tioned quick wins, rather than more on Kaizen activities. On one hand,
it shows how to use Standardized Work forms to identify easy and quick
opportunities for improvement. On the other hand, it provides simple
tools and forms to generate quick and easy-to-implement improvements
to nurture the enthusiasm that sustains Standardized Work implementa-
tion. Process improvement for the implementation of Standardized Work
is basically supported by two activities. The first is a sort of benchmark for
similar activities handled by different workers. It consists of using time
collection results, Standardized Work forms, pictures, and videos to ini-
tiate Black Books Sharing, which amounts to openly sharing operators’
practices and identifying and gathering best ones. The second key activity
is based on intensive observation called Tachinbo.* There are, in general,
three main focal points to this intensive observation: equipment, method,
and work conditions. Additional tools are proposed to support and chan-
nel these activities, prioritize outcomes to identify quick wins, and imple-
ment them straightaway.
In The One-Day Expert Series dedicated to Standardized Work, Thomas,
a young, high-potential plant manager in an industrial group, is reas-
signed to another plant, which is losing money. Previous plant manag-
ers have tried several initiatives with, to say the least, limited results. His
urgent mission, which sounds like the EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and
Africa) senior management’s last card, is simple: turn the plant around.
The morale in the plant is low; the staff is equally pessimistic about the
plant’s future and distrustful of senior management. Time is running
out; company headquarters needs concrete results and has become impa-
tient. To face these challenges, Thomas has decided to use Standardized
Work deployment to achieve quick and visible results while rebuilding
a real team. To this end, he has requested the support of Daniel Smith,
* Tachinbo is a Japanese word that translates as “standing still” in English.
 Introduction • 3

the industrial engineering manager for EMEA. Daniel had been with the
company for only a couple of years, after previous experience in the auto-
motive industry. Building on his previous experience, he recently designed
and launched a Standardized Work initiative and is looking to prove the
real power of Standardized Work by deploying it in several plants.
This series of books dedicated to Standardized Work improvement
recounts, step by step, Thomas’s deployment of Standardized Work
with Daniel’s support. The first book showed the initial steps Thomas
took to assess the plant’s current situation through measurement of
operators’ performance. The second book recounted the next steps of
this assessment, which consisted of writing Standardized Work forms
to help see both variability and waste. It also shed light on a dire indus-
trial engineering community squashed by a ubiquitous Excellence
System* organization and locked in an unrelentingly perilous fight
for relevance, if not survival. In this third book, Thomas opens a new
“front line” in his quest to turn around the plant as he tries a new
type of relationship with the labor union based on mutual trust and
constructive partnership while negotiating a competitiveness plan.
We will also see how he continues to push for the implementation
of Standardized Work. More precisely, we will learn about the use of
Standardized Work documents to generate and implement simple and
fast improvements that produce quick wins to keep the energy high
while implementing Standardized Work.

* An Excellence System is a local Lean implementation organization.

2
There Is No Panacea!

Thomas has been living in the same hotel for weeks now. As a special cus-
tomer, he arranged with the hotel manager to keep the same room. He
had also been granted some privileges. For instance, as a very early coffee
drinker, he got the right to access the kitchen any time he wanted to help
himself. Over time, he had created a new home in his hotel, where, ironi-
cally, he was spending more time than at his own place. Thomas’s peers
considered him to be one of the smartest guys around. But, being smart
was not enough; therefore, he worked as hard as possible to achieve his
objectives. He never looked for any excuse for inaction or to explain his
failures. Facing the choice between action with high risk of failure and
inaction, Thomas would always go for action. He even had a catchphrase
to motivate his staff when something went wrong: “The man who makes
no mistakes does not usually make anything.”* He thereby encouraged
everyone to move on after a failure. As he often asserted: “Real failure is
actually ‘not trying’ rather than ‘not succeeding.’”
Back at his hotel room after three intensive days of Standardized Work
training, Thomas had little sleep that night. While driving to his hotel, he
had heard the U.S. president commenting on the most recent job creations,
saying that the U.S. economy was starting to pick up steam. “The gears are
starting to turn again, and we’re getting some traction,” the U.S. presi-
dent said. Thomas thought, “No such thing could be said about France or
Europe in general. With the jobless rate above 10% in France and almost
three times higher in countries like Spain and Greece, Europe is clearly in
a gloomy situation. Economic crisis is nothing new, but this time it looks
different.” The other day, he had a discussion with an old friend in charge
of improvement in an automotive company’s plants, who said something

* Quotation from Edward Phelps.

5
6 • Implementing Standardized Work

that was still fresh in his mind. “In the previous crises, people used to take
advantage of the additional free time created by a drop in volume to get
ready for better times. It was therefore not unusual to see managers launch
multiple Kaizen events here and there to get prepared for the next cycle of
growth. Things look very different these days. Most people do not see this
as another crisis, but a ‘new normal.’ I can tell you that it has become very
difficult to energize people through Kaizen projects.”
Thomas had decided at a very young age to become an engineer because
he adored tinkering and spending leisure time inventing little toys. Later,
after graduating from one of his country’s best schools, he spent his first
years doing just what he loved: being an engineer working in manufac-
turing engineering, machine design, then production. He worked hard,
had lot of fun doing his job, and would, from time to time, feel some-
what remorseful when interacting with humanitarian friends. As he often
framed it, “Those folks spend their time changing people’s lives for the
better, while I am just content to have fun at my job.” Things have changed
drastically since his early professional life. The tableau of an abundant
Western European society has morphed into a dire picture as industry is
continuously contracting. To Thomas’s eyes, the situation was pretty clear.
Here, as elsewhere in Western countries, industry provides most of the
decent middle-class jobs. Its contraction in response to economic strains
was jeopardizing the whole social fabric of much of European society, if
not the civilization itself. For all these reasons, Thomas considered him-
self more and more as a man on a mission, just like those humanitarians
he had envied several years ago. He felt like his new assignment in this
French plant gave him the opportunity to contribute his share, something
more than a personal challenge.
Thomas had noticed that to sustain their margin and keep industry in
Europe, a growing number of companies had been focusing efforts on
improving their operations. As proof, he would say, “A term like ‘Lean’,
which was not even known to people around me in the early 2000s, is
now mentioned everywhere.” To support his point, he would spontane-
ously refer to changes in a company’s organization charts. “At the highest
level, you now see a director or a vice president in charge of Lean stuff.
Also, in each plant, you have someone or, more accurately, a team of peo-
ple, in charge of continuous improvement. Europe has embraced Lean
methods and is using them in every part of the business: Lean in manu-
facturing, in project management, in human resource management, in
offices, in finance, in education, you name it. What huge progress from a
 There Is No Panacea! • 7

few years ago!” Actually, Thomas had also been chilled by some dogmatic
approaches, and he would talk endlessly about how harmful they could
be in the long term. He would explain that even Toyota had been evolving
some of its initial principles.
His best example would be what Daniel called the “zero-buffer” dogma.
Taiichi Ohno, a Toyota engineer who is considered the father of the
Toyota Production System or Lean manufacturing, reportedly consid-
ered buffers absolute evil. Therefore, buffers were completely forbidden.
During his reign, Toyota would build very long lines with no buffers. As
a result, the whole line would stop every time a workstation stopped. This
was arguably a means to put pressure on people to solve the root cause
of problems and not to hide them in inventories. However, overall, this
would lead to poor line efficiency. After Ohno’s retirement, Toyota folks
decided to amend this principle and began including small buffers in
their lines.
The discussion Thomas had with Daniel when he stopped by his office
a few hours ago was still fresh in his mind. Daniel started by drawing a
curve on a flip chart (chart 1 of Figure 2.1) and commented: “It is true
that people’s reactivity decreases as buffer size increases. Because people
see lots of parts in the buffer, they tend to fall into some idleness and
fail to see the urgency of fixing problems that occur on the line. This is
something I have noticed myself in my daily work over several years of
experience. It is also confirmed by manufacturing scientists.* Based on
this metric, Taiichi Ohno was right to distain buffers.” While pursuing
the explanation, you could tell from the tone of his voice that Daniel was
leading up to a “but.” This came when he started drawing another chart
(chart 2 of Figure 2.1):

But, what Toyota learned the hard way was that the zero-buffer approach
leads to a catastrophe in efficiency. An analytic model of a production line
shows a curve of efficiency that looks like this one I just drew† [chart 2
of Figure 2.1]. It is easy to see that adding a small buffer to a zero-buffer
line will drastically increase its efficiency, which means that there is a huge
* Stanley Baiman, Serguei Netessin, and Richard Saouma, Informativeness, Incentive
Compensation, and the Choice of Inventory Buffer, The Accounting Review Vol. 85, No. 6, pp.
1839–1860 (2010); and Kenneth L. Schultz, David C. Juran, John W. Boudreau, John O. McClain,
and L. Joseph Thomas, Modeling and Worker Motivation in JIT Production Systems, Management
Science Vol. 44, No. 12, Part 1 of 2 (1998).
† For more details on analytic models, refer to Stanley B. Gershwin, Manufacturing Systems
Engineering, PTR Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1994.
8 • Implementing Standardized Work

Max
Reactivity decreases with buffer size
Some lean practitioners say:
Reactivity “No buffer; buffer is evil” 1

Buffer Size

Max

2
Efficiency

Efficiency without human factors

Optimal buffer size corresponds to the elbow of the curve.
However more buffer would not be harmful!

Buffer Size

Max
Overall Performance

Too much buffer 3

hampers reactivity;
efficiency goes down!

This point corresponds to

the optimal buffer size that
allows problems to be
fixed without stopping the line.

Buffer Size

FIGURE 2.1
Factory physics, which combines human factors and a production line analytic model,
shows that a small buffer has a huge impact on the efficiency of a line, while too much
buffer has an overall negative effect.

incentive to add a small-size buffer. However, this curve does not tell the
whole story, as it tends to show that more buffers are not harmful to the line
efficiency even though the payoff is less.

Daniel moved on and depicted a third graph while explaining the

following:
 There Is No Panacea! • 9

Actually, the correct picture is reached by combining the two previous

graphs to get a more holistic approach [chart 3 of Figure 2.1]. That means
including human factors into the analytic model to take into account
the fact that a worker’s reaction depends on the size of the buffer. This
is because we are looking at the behavior of the whole system, including
the workers and the line. It would be incomplete to focus only on peo-
ple’s reactions or to study the line only, without human factors. When we
consider this worker-line system, as you can see, an optimal buffer size
appears. This buffer is small enough to keep the reactivity high and big
enough to allow workers to fix most of the problems that may occur with-
out stopping the line. Very prosaically, a buffer should be looked at as a
medicine that, like any medicine, has side effects. In consequence, when
too much of it is used, the negative parts trump the positive parts. The
irony of this situation is that even years after Toyota moved away from the
“zero-buffer dogma,” many Lean practitioners are still preaching about
it zealously. The same folks will tell you that all you have been doing in
your job is wrong and urge you to convert to Lean instantly, whatever your
job: manufacturing, finance, management. ... A part of what they say is
absolutely true, as some basic Lean principles can help you improve a lot.
However, bear in mind that the Toyota Production System, or Lean, will
not solve all your problems. You should think critically. Here’s the thing:
There is no panacea!

On the memory of those words, Thomas tried to fall asleep, convinced

that if he was to turn around the plant, implanting Lean tools alone will
not suffice. He needed something else, maybe a sort of give-and-take com-
posite plan. He had a quick look at his clock; it was 2 a.m. He understood
that the night would be very short. “Not the best way to get ready for
another intensive day of workshop,” he muttered.

Toyota Production System or Lean, will not solve all your problems.
You should think critically. Here is the thing: There is no panacea!
3
Training Day

Thursday was the fourth day of training. As always, Daniel was first to the
training room. He needed this time to prepare before the training, before
the bulk of the participants arrived. The ritual was clearly defined. As
always, he would need to spend some time discussing yesterday’s training.
He would keep asking himself: “Were the main messages conveyed and
key learning assimilated?” Daniel would then say a few words about the
day’s training, just like a chef announcing the menu to his guests. “This
allegory resounded well in this country well renowned for its cuisine,”
Daniel thought. This consisted of laying down the content of the day’s
training in his now-well-known, step-by-step structure (Figure 3.1), still
with the tantalizing touch of a chef.
Unlike the previous day, Thursday was a very sunny day. In this area of
France, it was not unusual to move from autumn to spring weather within
a few hours. Unlike Wednesday, everyone had arrived before the beginning
of the training. After a glance at the room, Daniel noticed that, despite the
nice weather, some faces showed the toll taken from the last three intensive
days. He therefore understood that today would be more challenging than
the previous days. This was a common pattern he had noticed throughout
all the training he had given so far. “Thursday is always the most difficult
day, the make-or-break day, which can sink your whole week’s training;
you need to be careful,” he murmured to himself. To balance the physical
weariness of the bodies, Daniel’s method consisted of appealing to their
mental energy by raising the level of enthusiasm. Nothing could do better
than real success achieved on the shop floor. This need was in perfect sync
with the planning, as Thursday was dedicated to process improvements
that would provide some quick wins in the end.
Not all faces looked tired. Among the brighter ones was Eric’s. The young
Excellence System manager was accustomed to weeklong intensive trainings.

11
12 • Implementing Standardized Work

Steps of Standardized Work Deployment

Capturing current state
- Operators’ performance mapping
- Writing standardized work support documents: Trained
process analysis, STW chart, STW combination
table, operator work instructions

Improving the process

- Sharing the “black books”
- Tachinbo Kaizen (equipment, method, work Today’s training
conditions)
- Updating standardized workforms

Training
- Writing training documents
- Implementing training

Auditing
- Standardized work auditing (frequent)
- Operators performance mapping (periodical)

FIGURE 3.1
Steps of Standardized Work deployment.

Eric was no stranger to Daniel. Since he joined the company, they had met sev-
eral times. As one of Daniel’s colleagues once put it: “This fellow had enough
energy to heat the whole city for a while.” Eric, who was in his midthirties,
joined the company 8 years ago, after a sparkling career in a small plastics com-
pany. At least this is how he would voluntarily describe it. Everyone around
him had heard several stories, in which he liked to brag about being a plant
manager in his midtwenties. Despite his tendency to endlessly boast about his
past achievements, Eric was unanimously recognized as a leader who would
not hesitate to push everybody around while getting his hands dirty to make
things happen. Eric was also considered a hypercompetitive person; whatever
he was doing, he played to win. He therefore took every occasion when he or
his team would be compared to others seriously. This attitude also applied to
late-evening team-building bowling parties, when everyone else simply wanted
to have fun. Here as well, losing was not an option.
It was no surprise that Eric felt very uncomfortable being part of a team
running one of the worst plants in the region. He felt like his plant’s per-
formance was nowhere near the kind of standards he set for himself. He
expressed this discomfort on several occasions, for he generally spoke his
 Training Day • 13

mind. As a straight talker—some said straight shooter—he was perceived

rather positively by those around him, although some complained that too
much of it made him appear like a schoolyard bully. Talent spotted by the
EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and Africa) senior management, Eric was
rumored to be moving to headquarters after his current assignment. In
the meantime, he had a perilous task: contribute to the turnaround of his
current plant. “Not a piece of cake,” as he would most certainly say.
In this plant, as in many others, the friction, to say the least, between the
industrial engineering (IE) and nascent Excellence System teams had left
some unhealed wounds. Relations between the very analytic Steve, the IE
manager, and the energetic straight talker Eric were not at their best, not
quite at the level of hostility between two heavyweight boxers, but there was
a perceptible frost. However, they were two smart guys who could arrange to
work together even in some tense situations. The dire situation of the plant
left no chance for distraction; the Standardized Work system, as designed
by Daniel, would need all of them to work as a team. Therefore, to be suc-
cessful, they needed to put aside their personal uneasiness with each other.
Bringing IE and Excellence System people together to work for a common
goal had been one of the least-anticipated challenges Daniel faced wherever
the training was delivered. Daniel knew that he could count on Eric for any-
thing, especially on this crucial day dedicated to process improvement.
As expected, the session started with the review of the previous day’s
learning. “What did you retain from yesterday’s training?” Daniel asked.
Steve jumped in:
A big chunk of our core business is about writing standards. I must say
that I was surprised at how easy it appeared: your step-by-step approach
and your advice to focus not on the time, but on the method used by work-
ers. As you said, “The right method would lead to the right time.” I have to
admit that we IE people tend to focus a lot on the time. I appreciated that
you did not request that we get rid of our current standards because, as you
underscored correctly, we still need them. When it comes to the charts, I
agree with you that they are way more visual, and the warm-up exercise
was very convincing. The Yamazumihyo* was new to me. It looked like a
very powerful chart for process analysis.

* Yamazumihyo is actually the concentration of three words in Japanese: Yama, which means
mountain; Zumi, which means accumulate; and Hyo, which means chart. Like many Japanese
companies, we use the word “Yamazumihyo” to characterize the Process Analysis chart. However,
it may be used to designate something else in some other Japanese companies. For more details,
please refer the second book of the series: Implementing Standardized Work: Writing Standardized
Work Forms.
14 • Implementing Standardized Work

Steve, who felt like he was talking too much, paused and concluded,
“That’s it, as far as I am concerned. I will let the other participants com-
plete.” While looking toward Eric, the Excellence System manager, Daniel
continued: “Please go ahead and let us know your takeaway from yester-
day.” Eric had participated in another training on Standardized Work
forms writing. He was well positioned to compare what he had learned
before to what Daniel had taught yesterday.

I very much liked your step-by-step approach. I found what you said about
Key Points to be very instructive. I have to say that when I first got the train-
ing about how to find them, it looked very fuzzy to me. For sure, you did
not give us an equation to find them, but I do have a better understanding
now. Also, I understand their importance and why you decided to make
them one of the elements of Standardized Work. Just like Steve, I like the
Yama (short for Yamazumihyo) chart as well. It was new stuff for me too. I
am very interested to see how we will be using our charts today to generate
improvement ideas.

After Eric’s words, it was Sarah’s turn to give her feedback. Sarah, the
human resources (HR) manager who was also in charge of training, insisted
that focusing on the method instead of the result was the right thing. As she
commented: “Well, it will change the way we address problems from ‘finger
pointing to problem solving.’ I consider this a big shift in our mindset. It
also puts more responsibility on the training, which I am in charge of. My
understanding so far is that we need to focus on finding the right method
and train our people to master it. I am very okay with that. This is what I
have been preaching for a while, and I am glad it appeared in yesterday’s key
messages.” John, the engineering manager, also shared a few words: “All this
is new to me. However, I found it very easy to understand. I will be looking
forward to seeing the kind of improvements that happen a lot today and to
seeing how we can contribute to the implementation.”
At this point, lots had been said. Thomas felt no need to repeat the
points. He then raised a rather general point about what he called Daniel’s
philosophy, which included taking the liberty to modify and customize
tools seen elsewhere to best fit the situation at hand. He concluded by say-
ing: “This is the best way to learn as well. I am not sure that we are really
making progress when we put ourselves in the mindset of believers and
consider everything that comes out of Toyota’s playbook as a dogma to be
applied without question.”
 Training Day • 15

David, the person in charge of HSE (health, safety, and environment)

and ergonomics at the plant, had something to share as a follow-up to an
informal discussion he had with Daniel two days before. The point was
about the impact of Standardized Work on safety. Safety was the compa-
ny’s biggest focus, whose slogan was “Safety first!” During this exchange,
David explained that the company had invested a lot of effort into improv-
ing safety, with visible progress. Daniel agreed, but added that: “The safety
improvement indicator has been somewhat flat recently.” He shared a
suggestion that he had been pushing at the regional level. “I do believe
Standardized Work implementation and further safety progress are inex-
tricably interwoven. I think it is the new frontier in our fight to improve
workers’ safety.” To make his case, he asked if David could come up with a
chart of the causes of accidents in his plant over the last 5 years. After two
long nights working on the subject, David had something to share with
the audience (Figure 3.2). The chart showed that most (67%) accidents that
happened over the last few years were due to unsafe acts. “Identifying the
safest way to do the job, including them in the key points, and training
our people could really make the difference here,” David asserted con-
vincingly. Daniel nodded and commented: “The second cause, namely,

80%

70% 67%
Unsafe acts
60%
Work conditions
50%
Others

40%

30% 28%

20%

10%
5%
0%

FIGURE 3.2
Most (67%) of accidents in a plant are due to unsafe acts. Implementing Standardized
Work helps reduce worker injuries by decreasing unsafe acts and improving work
conditions.
16 • Implementing Standardized Work

‘work conditions,’ can be improved through the implementation of

Standardized Work as well. I will come back to this point later. So, overall,
it is pretty clear that the implementation of Standardized Work will have
a big impact on safety in our plants.” Everybody in the room seemed to
concur.
Visibly pleased by the start of the day, Daniel thanked the participants
for their feedback and congratulated David for the chart he had shared. He
noticed that, compared to the previous day, more things had been said in
this morning’s recap. Was that a sign of increased involvement from the
trainees, which meant better understanding? He could not know for sure.
Rather than trying to answer, he chose to wait and see. “Let’s see how it
unfolds today,” he whispered to himself. He also decided that he would
underscore once more why it was necessary to deploy Standardized Work
as a system composed of four steps: capturing the current state, improving
the process, training, and auditing. He explained that each of these four
steps, deployed individually, would yield few results that could fade very
quickly, whereas a system approach would provide the fabric that would
strengthen the deployment and amplify the magnitude of the results.
It was time to move to the day’s agenda. In a now-ritual gesture, Daniel
moved to the chart he presented on day one (Figure 3.1) and commented:

We have now covered the first block of this chart, which consists of captur-
ing the current state. Today’s training will focus on improving the process.
I would like to elaborate a little bit more on the “improving-the-process”
block shown rather succinctly on this day one chart [Figure  3.1]. This is
actually a multistep process. The first step will be about using data col-
lected on the shop floor and Standardized Work forms to support best
practice sharing that we also call black books sharing. I need to say that
video recording can be helpful as well, especially for beginners. Some of
you who were not here the first day might be asking yourself what black
books means. Well, I will come back to this later. The second step con-
sists of an intensive observation called Tachinbo. Yes, another Japanese
word! This intensive observation, along with the use of previously written
Standardized Work forms, will lead to a list of improvement actions regard-
ing work conditions, equipment, and work method. These actions will be
prioritized based on foreseen benefits and efforts. In this process, actions
that require extensive effort will be eliminated, and priority will be given
the ones that require the least effort. The result of this step is an action plan.
The easiest actions to implement will be executed today or within a few
days. These actions are expected to yield quick results with little manpower
 Training Day • 17

or investment effort. Before we proceed, the time is right to mention some

caveats. Some of you have already been through a Kaizen workshop. This is
not a Kaizen workshop per se. If we were to do such a workshop, we would
need another week for that. Process improvement activities are included
here as part of the Standardized Work system approach, as I explained
previously. Our main objective today is to grasp some just-do-it actions
and other quick ones, which I called zero-CAPEX* actions the first day
while introducing the Standardized Work deployment. These actions are
necessary to keep the motivation high in the team, as they give a sense of
achievement after some hard work. Without them, writing Standardized
Work forms may sound senseless. The final step of our work will then be to
update Standardized Work documents to close the loop. Clearly, you need
a standardized process to see opportunities for improvement. As Taiichi
Ohno famously said, let me paraphrase him again: “There is no improve-
ment without standardization.” This is what we did yesterday by writing
Standardized Work forms. On the other hand, you need standardization
to harvest or realize your improvement ideas. This is what we will be doing
at the end of today. To sum up, we do need standardization (for instance,
standardized work forms) before and after improvement. Finally, as you
can see on the chart I printed out for you [Figure 3.3], standardization and
improvement are alternating processes, which are flip sides of the same
coin. They ultimately lead to improved safety, better quality and productiv-
ity, and therefore more dollars in your pocket.

Improvement
Standardization
Value

Standardization

Time
Standardization and improvement are flip sides of the same coin.
They ultimately lead to improved safety, better quality, and higher productivity,
hence more dollars in your pocket over time.

FIGURE 3.3
Standardization and improvement are the two sides of the same coin.

* These are actions whose implementation requires very little capital expenditure (CAPEX).
18 • Implementing Standardized Work

Daniel stopped for a few seconds and stared at the room to make sure
that everything was all right, then proceeded. “One last point before I
conclude. Although it sounds obvious, it is worth reminding that, in
this third part, we will also be looking at opportunities to extend any
improvement made to any other similar processes in the plant or else-
where to rack up the maximum benefit. Well, this is all I have to tell you
about today’s agenda. As always, if there is anything unclear in your
mind, please stop and ask! Now guys, let’s get started. Thomas, would
you like to summarize as usual?” Thomas jumped to the paperboard
and quickly sketched a chart to illustrate his summary (Figure  3.4).
He explained: “This is how I see the process when it comes to the four
operators of our four teams*: With black books sharing, we will go

Worker 1 Worker 2 Worker 3 Worker 4

method method method method

Black Books Sharing

Worker
Standard

Tachinbo

Support tools for “Black Books” and Tachinbo

List of
improvements Video, Time collection sheet, Standardized Work
combination table, Standardized Work chart,
Prioritization Operator Work instructions, Yamazumihyo

Action plan

Execution

Results

Acting

STW forms,
Extension

FIGURE 3.4
Steps of process improvement in Standardized Work deployment.

* This refers to the four teams formed for the simulation exercise, which is used to exemplify each
step of training. For more details, please refer to the previous books in this series.
 Training Day • 19

from four different work methods to only one, which I call ‘Worker
Standard.’ This is the combination of best practices from four operators.
Then, Tachinbo and prioritization, execution, and updating standard-
ized forms will follow.” Daniel thanked Thomas and added: “I like your
chart. It tells the story exactly.” He then stopped, looked around, and
continued: “Now, it is time to delve deep into each of those tools. We
will start with the ‘black book sharing.’ As always, explanation will be
followed by application on the T-shirt simulation we have been using
from the beginning.”

There is no improvement without standardization. Standardization

without improvement is senseless. Therefore, standardization and
improvement are the flip sides of the same coin.
4
Sharing Black Books

Daniel thought that he had to contextualize the phrase “black book.”

“Does anybody here know the meaning of a black book?” Two or three
people raised their hands. Daniel asked one of them to explain. “A black
book is a book of names of people who should be censored or punished
for some reason,” the person answered. “That is absolutely correct; actu-
ally, it is one of the meanings of black book, but not really the one we
will be using,” Daniel responded. “There are other meanings when you
look in a dictionary, but the one that I will be introducing here is that of
Brian Joiner.* We’ll call a black book a set of practices or tips that each
worker has gathered through the years to ease or more broadly improve
his or her work. Most of the time, those tips are a jealously kept secret
by the owner and never shared with other people.” Daniel paused for a
few seconds to underscore the next sentence. “The word black here is
related to the secrecy of what is contained in the book. I am sure that
you have seen several examples in this plant or elsewhere. Could you
share with us?”
John, the engineering manager, had a story to share. “I used to work in
the body shop of a carmaker,” he started.

As some of you may know, the main operation in a body shop is welding
steel parts. In most of the plants, this operation is performed by robots,
which are controlled by programs. A few days after I joined this company,
I first noticed some strange operations at the beginning of the afternoon
shift. Every day, before starting his shift, a group leader of an afternoon
team would move from PLC [programmable logic controller] to PLC with
a floppy disk that he would introduce in the reader and make some weird

* Brian L. Joiner, Fourth Generation Management: The New Business Consciousness, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1994.

21
22 • Implementing Standardized Work

manipulations. Puzzled by such activities, I decided to check what was going

on in other areas before discussing with my boss. I noticed the same kind of
activities in other areas and later in almost all shifts. I therefore decided to
discuss this peculiar behavior with my boss. Actually, when I recounted the
story to him, he almost laughed in my face. He explained to me that each
team had its own robot programs that suited their own way of production
and would not trust those of other teams. Therefore, at the beginning of
each team’s shift, the team would erase the previous shift’s robot programs
and upload their own programs developed by their own robotics techni-
cians, which included their secret findings and good practices.

Daniel thanked John and promised to check with him later for the end of
the story. According to Daniel, “John’s story shows an interesting case of
robots, where standardization should definitely be implemented.” Another
trainee also mentioned that in their plant, operators usually reorganize
their workstation before starting production.
Daniel carried on: “In those two examples, there are two kinds
of losses. They both look like self-inflicted wounds. In effect, those
changes at the beginning of each shift take time, just like a tool or die
change we are imposing on ourselves. The second loss comes from the
loss of opportunity to leverage other teams’ or operators’ good prac-
tices. The latter is our focal point.” Daniel stopped for a deep breath,
then asked if anyone had questions so far. Facing no response, he con-
tinued: “Now, let’s go back to the simulation exercise we have been
using from the beginning.”
Over his years of giving trainings, if there was something Daniel had
learned was powerful, it was the importance of preparing the trainees. He
wanted to make sure up front that people were in the most open-minded
disposition. As he used to say: “To ensure that people open their head’s
door,” he frequently used quizzes. He clearly knew that there was no bet-
ter way to capture people’s interest and prepare them for learning than an
anodyne question. Quite unsurprisingly, the one he chose looked trivial.
“Before we start working on the simulation, could you guess the percent-
age of improvement we would be able to achieve by applying ‘black book
sharing’ to our simulation? Are we talking about 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, or
more?” The room stayed silent for a few seconds. Then, Thomas reacted:
“Well, I really have no idea; however, based on my experience running
plants, I think getting a 10% improvement through any project is not so
bad. Therefore, I would take 10% if you can give it to me, Daniel.” Daniel
 Sharing Black Books • 23

nodded and continued: “Well, 10% for Thomas. Who else wants to play the
guessing game?” Many attendees responded.
Daniel wrote down all numbers, including the boldest, 30%, given by
Eric, who, as a smart good risk taker, sensed that the interest for Daniel
asking such question would only be justified by a surprising outcome. Most
of the numbers ranged from 5% to 20%. Daniel then concluded: “I have
written down all your numbers, let’s leave them here. We will see who got
the best guess in a few moments.” John, the engineering manager, jumped
in and argued that the real improvement he saw was on the machine;
he went on to say, “I have noticed that the operator is waiting while the
machine is ironing. This is slowing the work; ergo, if we can speed up the
machine a little bit, we will get some real improvement.” This point of view
from an engineering manager came as no surprise to Daniel. “They keep
focusing on machine capacity. It is absolutely Pavlovian; when they hear
improvement, they think machine,” Daniel mumbled to himself. In effect,
John was so focused on the machine that he did not even notice that his
comment was out of the context of the question. Daniel responded: “Well,
John, I’ll take note of your comment, but I suggest we come back to that
point later, when we will be talking about ways to improve the process, all
right?” John acquiesced, visibly a little embarrassed.
Daniel then moved to the paperboard and started flipping the charts
back. He stopped on one* (Figure  4.1). “You surely remember this table
that we filled out yesterday: Sixteen numbers, each recording the times of
the four steps of the four teams. You remember when we took the mode of
each of the four steps of the packing operation: picking the T-shirt, iron-
ing the T-shirt, folding the T-shirt, and storing the T-shirt, right?” The
room acquiesced. “Well, along with the time, I made some notes assessing
your work, quality-wise and safety-wise. I used those numbers to build
another table,” Daniel said, pointing to a chart he had displayed early this
morning while preparing the training (Figure 4.2).
“We will use this benchmark table to share the best practices between
teams. Let me underscore this again. As you may notice, it is not only
about time. We are also interested in safety/ergonomics and quality. Well,
let me state this very strongly: No time-saving good practice should be
retained if it hampers safety or quality.” This was certainly not the first
time Daniel was insisting on the primacy of safety and quality over time
* Excerpt from the previous book: Implementing Standardized Work: Writing Standardized Work
Forms.
24 • Implementing Standardized Work

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4

Picking the
7 21 5 21
T-shirt

Ironing the
11 11 11 12
T-Shirt
Folding the
11 24 19 28
T-shirt
Storing the
T-shirt 8 5 7 11

Cycle
Time 37 61 42 67

FIGURE 4.1
Modes of the four measurement steps of the four teams carried over from yesterday’s
session; more details are available in the previous book of the series: Implementing
Standardized Work: Writing Standardized Work Forms.

saving. It was therefore no surprise to the trainees, who murmured their

approval. “Well, coming back to the time,” Daniel carried on, “if you look
at the ‘Total’ row and column ‘Best,’ you will see that there are two num-
bers. The first one, 37, is the best cycle time of all four teams and the second
one, 32, is the total of minimum times for each step.” Daniel paused a few
seconds to make sure that everyone was following so far, then continued.
“Now I have a question for you: Which conclusion do you draw from the
gap between those two numbers?” Eric reacted instantly. “The fact that the

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Best Reasons for being the best?

Step 1 7 21 5 21 5

Step 2 11 11 11 12 11
Time
Step 3 11 24 19 28 11

Step 4 8 5 7 11 5

32
Total 37 61 42 67
37

Safety/
Ergonomics 1 0 2 0 0
Issues

Quality
1 2 0 3 0
Issues

FIGURE 4.2
Benchmark table for sharing the best practices between teams.
 Sharing Black Books • 25

total of minimums is 5 seconds below the minimum of cycle times proves

that the best operator is not always the best at all steps. Therefore, grasping
the method of the best team to make it the new standard will not always be
enough. We need to go into more detail to fetch the best for each step and
spread it to everyone else.” Daniel thanked Eric and added:

What you just said is completely correct. I actually built the new table you
just saw for this purpose [Figure 4.2]. Okay, as it is now clear to everyone,
we will examine every step, identify the best team, and find out the reasons
why the best team is actually the best. Standardized Work forms you all
know support this quest for best practices: the Standardized Work com-
bination table, Standardized Work chart, operator work instructions, and
Process analysis chart. In practice, that means that you will have to com-
pare those documents between the four teams. Also, when you go to the
shop floor, shooting videos can be very useful. Actually, displaying differ-
ent operators’ work side by side in a room with the whole group around will
make it easier to see different practices and thereafter identify the best ones.

Daniel moved to the paperboard and started a table while explaining

(Figure 4.3):

Now, before I let you do the black book sharing, let’s make some quick com-
putations to look at potential savings in two cases: when you only copy the
best team and when you copy the best from within each team. First, here

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Total 4 teams

Current Cycle time
(sec) 37 61 42 67 12,2
Current production rate
(parts/min) 1,62 0,98 1,43 0,90 4,93

1-All teams at 37 sec

(parts/min) 1,62 1,62 1,62 1,62 6,49
Percent
improvement 0% 65% 14% 81% 32%

2-All teams at 32 sec

(parts/min) 1,88 1,88 1,88 1,88 7,50
Percent
improvement 16% 91% 31% 109% 52%

FIGURE 4.3
Potential saving from black book sharing.
26 • Implementing Standardized Work

are the cycle times of all four teams. Now, you can trust me, guys, the best
way to navigate safely in this thing is to work with production rates, not
cycle times. Therefore, I will write down in the second row the current pro-
duction rate of each team. This is given in parts per minute. Hypothetically,
let us suppose that we only copy the method of the best team: Team 1. That
means all teams will be at Team 1’s cycle time. Overall, this will result in a
32% increase in production. If we can copy the best of all steps of all four
teams, then the potential for improvement increases drastically. It reaches a
staggering 52%! Hey, folks, think about this—we are talking about gaining
52% just by looking around at what the other guys are doing! The beauty
here is that this bounty comes at virtually no cost. This isn’t a big CAPEX
action. It’s zero CAPEX!”

Thomas jumped in and asked: “Daniel, I am really surprised that the

gain could be so significant. Is this the order of magnitude you really
notice in the plants that have implemented Standardized Work, or are you
just making it huge in this simulation to show the importance of black
book sharing?” Daniel, who was about to address this point, was visibly
pleased that somebody asked the question:

Well, Thomas, this is an excellent question. I can tell you that I have seen
even more gains in real plants. The minimum I have seen so far is 5% in
one of our German plants, actually one of our top plants, and the maxi-
mum was 75% in a plant in the United Kingdom. Most of the numbers
have been between those two numbers. As you can see, it is a really big deal,
yet people tend to overlook such opportunities. For instance, in the U.K.
plant, nobody actually knew that one of the operators working on week-
ends was 75% more productive than the others. When this guy heard that
the plant was launching a Standardized Work initiative that would include
sharing best practices, he voluntarily showed up and explained that he had
a method he figured out alone that, he believed, was more productive than
others’ methods. Believe me, this is a true story. Now, think about all those
years the plant had troubles delivering its big-margin products to its cus-
tomers while it could have hugely increased its capacity simply by copying
the method of the weekend operator!

After this appalling story, Daniel continued: “OK, guys, I will be very gra-
cious with you. I will not go back to check your initial improvement guess.
I think Eric gave the best guest. He anticipated 30%, 22% shy of our final
result, which is 52%.”
 Sharing Black Books • 27

Reacting to an attendee’s remark, Daniel explained that they needed to

get beyond the numbers and see concretely how the 52% improvement
could be achieved. That would ultimately be done using Standardized
Work forms and videos, which he lauded as an excellent tool to perform
comparisons between workstations. Daniel proposed that Eric facilitate
the benchmark between teams to reveal all the good practices and write
them down in the last column of the table he taped on the wall (Figure 4.2).
He insisted that the group must not go beyond his instructions to find
more improvement. “This is the first phase of the improvement process,
which should be limited only to black book sharing. Please do not try to
find more improvements at this stage. As discussed previously, almost all
actions you will find here will fall into the category of what I call ‘just-do-
it.’ These are actions whose implementation requires relatively little effort
and yields important benefits,” he reminded.
After a few minutes of discussion, the group filled out the table (Figure 4.4)
and listed the good practices collected on a flip chart (Figure 4.5). Almost
all of them could be implemented quickly. Therefore, Daniel asked each
team to apply them right away. A few minutes later, the implementation
was completed. Daniel asked each team to use a stopwatch to evaluate the
new cycle time. Team 1, still the best, reached the 32 seconds set as target.

Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4 Best Reasons for being the best?

Team 3’s Raw material bin closer to

Step 1 7 21 5 21 5
station

No difference. Press time very stable

Step 2 11 11 11 12 11

Time Team 1’s operator folds faster, has better

Step 3 11 24 19 28 11 dexterity, lays down the T-shirt flatly
before starting.

Team 2’s finished goods bin is closer

Step 4 8 5 7 11 5

32 With 37 sec, Team 1 is the best but

Total 37 61 42 67 could reach 32 sec if it was the best at
37 each step.

Safety/
Ergonomics Team 2, 4’s hands always kept out of
1 0 2 0 0
Issues the press. Operator’s path cleared.

All Team 3’s folded T-shirts respected

Quality Issues 1 2 0 3 0
quality requirements

FIGURE 4.4
Cycle time, safety, and quality of four teams show that the overall best team was not the
best in everything.
28 • Implementing Standardized Work

Good Practice-Sharing Actions

• Move raw material bin close to the workstation (learned from Team 3).
• Copy Team 1’s folding method; make sure that it ensures a good-quality product.
• Move finished goods bin close to station (learned from Team 2).
• Inform/train operators to keep hands clearly out of the press (learned from Team 2).
• Clear operator pathway (learned from Team 2).

FIGURE 4.5
Main actions from black book sharing.

One point appeared not so obvious to implement: copying Team 1’s folding
method. Daniel explained that the performance of Team 1’s operator, as
stated in the column “Reasons for Being the Best?” of the chart in Figure 4.4,
was a combination of the pace of work, dexterity, and a key point, which
consisted of laying the T-shirt flat before starting. He then summarized his
message in a table (Figure 4.6) in a few words while explaining:
As you all know by now, increasing the pace of the worker by making the
worker run is not the objective of Standardized Work. Once again, we
focus on the best way to do things, which will translate into more pro-
ductivity and increased safety and quality. The goal is not to get people to
work harder but smarter. Now, let me jump to the third item, which is a
key point: laying the T-shirt flat before starting. This is exactly what we are
looking for. This is something clearly identified that will be easy to spread,
first through Standardized Work documents and later in training docu-
ments as well. Now, let’s move on to the last and trickiest item, which is
dexterity. This is a combination of a lot of things. The least I can say is that
it takes time to acquire dexterity when it is not natural. Therefore, it should
be addressed early when hiring operators. Then later, intensive training or

Reasons for being the best Copying How to address?

-Not the focus point of Standardized Work.

Pace of work No -Standardized Work is about the best way,
not the pace.
-Screening when hiring operators
Possible
Dexterity -Intensive initial training
but not easy
-Increases over time

Key point: “lay T-shirt -Include as key point in Standardized Work

Yes documents
flat before starting”
-Include in Standardized Work training documents

FIGURE 4.6
Difficulty in copying Team 1’s way of folding T-shirts.
 Sharing Black Books • 29

experience accumulated over time can improve things. I do not want to

spend too much time on this topic now. We will address it tomorrow when
we talk about training.* The bottom line here is that it is normal that the
operators of the three other teams do not get the 11 seconds of Teams 1’s
operator instantly.

One participant wanted to know if the next step would be to update

the Standardized Work forms. Daniel, with a favorite line, “If the student
has not learnt, then the teacher has not taught,” was an extremely patient
teacher. He took this opportunity to reexplain what he had already said:
“As I have explained previously, the updating step will come after the
next wave of improvement, called Tachinbo, prioritization and execution.
And—your question comes at the right time: Tachinbo is exactly what we
are going to do next.”
Another participant had a question: “Daniel, you have underscored sev-
eral times that Standardized Work is not about time, yet the first thing you
do is to compare the modes of the four operators. I am a little bit confused.
Could you explain?” Daniel thanked the participant for the question,
which was an opportunity to clarify the methodology he just presented.
“Well, look: As you may have noticed, we have ended up with proposed
actions to improve each operator’s method. I mean that we used the time
to identify the possible best operators, then we asked ourselves reasons
for these individuals being the best, which at the end of the process led
to a list of suggestions for improvement actions.” He talked while moving
toward two charts (Figure 4.4, Figure 4.5). “As the saying goes: ‘The time
is the shadow of the method,’ and we are engaged in a sort of inquiry in
which time is used as means to evidence discrepancies between the four
operators’ production methods. It is actually difficult, and almost impos-
sible, to find two operators using different methods that result in equal
times.” Daniel then drew a simple table to illustrate his words (Figure 4.7)
and concluded: “The operator with the minimum time has the highest
probability to possess the best method. We then need to make sure that
this time is reached in the smartest—not the hardest—way that does not
hamper safety and ensures a good-quality product.”
Daniel congratulated the group and asked Thomas if he would like to
summarize the learning before they moved to the next module. Thomas
went to the paperboard and laid down the takeaways (Figure 4.8). Daniel,
* Training is the subject of the next book in the same series.
30 • Implementing Standardized Work

“Time is the shadow of the method”

Methods

Identical Different

High Low
Identical probability probability
Times
Low High
Different probability probability

FIGURE 4.7
Different times are strong evidence of different methods.

Black Book Sharing Takeaways

• It consists of sharing all operators’ good practices.
• It should not be limited to the operator with the best cycle time.
• Rather, look at the best operator for each step.
• It should go beyond time to include safety, ergonomics, and quality.
• No time-saving “good practice” should be retained if it hampers safety or quality.
• Most black book sharing resulting actions are “just-do-it” actions—very low effort with substantial
benefits.

FIGURE 4.8
Main black book sharing takeaways.

obviously satisfied with those bullet points, found nothing to add. He

therefore suggested they move to the next part, dedicated to Tachinbo,
after a 5-minute break.

The best operator is not always the best at every step. Therefore,
grasping the method of the best team to make it the new standard
will not be enough. We need to go into more details to fetch the best
at each step and spread it to everyone else.

Almost all actions you will find here will fall into the category of what
I call just-do-it. These are actions whose implementation requires
relatively little effort and yields potentially important benefits.
5
Tachinbo

During the 5-minute break, Daniel had a quick discussion with Thomas.
Daniel had, by chance, heard that there was a project under way to lay
off several workers, and he wanted to verify the information. He com-
mented: “You certainly remember the discussion we had before launching
Standardized Work implementation. I cautioned that everyone must be
on board, workers first. No operator should think that he or she might
lose his or her job as a result of improvements. Look, fundamentally, I
have nothing against cutting workforce when it is necessary, but if it needs
to be done, it has to be done plainly and at the beginning. Afterward, a
commitment should be made to the remaining workers to keep their jobs
safe.” Thomas denied the rumors: “I have given them my word that no one
will be fired.” He admitted that there was actually a plan in the works but
not layoffs. He promised to give more information to Daniel later. He also
added that he ought to communicate quickly on the point to avoid those
rumors becoming a distraction at the very moment he needed his entire
staff to be focused on Standardized Work implementation. The break was
now over, and Daniel had to carry on with the training.
Daniel expected this fourth day of the training to be very tough, yet
he saw no sign of weariness on the mostly happy faces when the group
returned from the short break. Flattered by this encouraging sign, he went
directly to the heart of the matter; directing his laser pointer to the word
Tachinbo, he started. “In this phase, we will focus on waste elimination.
Well, before going any further, I need to give you the meaning of this
Japanese word. It means standing still, and in our business, it refers to the
act of standing before a process and observing it for hours. It is recounted
that this was Taiichi Ohno’s* favorite training exercise. He would

* Ohno was a Toyota engineer who is considered to be the father of the Toyota Production System or
Lean manufacturing.

31
32 • Implementing Standardized Work

Improvement

Eliminate Mura

uri
ate M
a
Muda = Waste
te Mud
Mura = Variability

Elimin
Muri = Overburden
Elimina

FIGURE 5.1
Muda, Mura, and Muri must be eliminated to improve the process.

reportedly draw a circle and let his student stand inside; Ohno would leave
and come back roughly 8 hours later and ask: ‘What did you see?’” A dif-
fused rumble arose from the room, signaling the trainees’ astonishment.
“What could one be looking at for 8 hours? Isn’t that a waste of time?” they
asked. Daniel expected such reactions. Also, he knew that until people
learned by doing themselves, they would not understand any explanation.
At this specific moment, he thought of one of his favorite quotations from
John Keats: “Nothing ever becomes real til it is experienced.” He therefore
responded: “Well, I suggest we come back to those questions at the end
of this training. Trust me, before you experience it, it will be difficult to
understand. However, be assured, I will not ask you to stay on the shop
floor today for 8 hours.” He concluded jokingly. “Now, if you do not mind,
I suggest that we go straight to the heart of the subject. Shall we?”
Daniel moved close to a chart and started a drawing while explain-
ing (Figure 5.1). “There are three kinds of wastes according to Toyota:
Muda, which refers to pure waste; Mura, which refers to variability or
unevenness; and Muri, which refers to overburden of machine or, more
importantly, people. It is often referred to as the 3 Ms or the 3 Mus.
This can be represented as a three-legged stool. Okay, when we stand
still in the plant, we will be trying to identify those kinds of wastes.”
At this point, Daniel wanted to reiterate a few obvious things, starting
with Muda. “As you all probably know, there are seven types of Muda
that you can easily remember with the following mnemonic method:
T-I-M W-O-O-D.” Daniel went to the flip chart and started explaining
(Figure 5.2). “T for transportation, I for inventory, M for motion, W for
wait and not waste as commonly mistaken, O for overproduction, O for
overprocess, and D for defect.” He then underscored: “Of the 3 Ms or
 Tachinbo • 33

The Seven Wastes (TIM WOOD)

  • Transportation
  • Inventory
   • Motion
  • Wait (not Waste)
  • Overproduction
   • Overprocess
    • Defect

FIGURE 5.2
T-I-M W-O-O-D is the most common mnemonic to remember the seven wastes.

Mus, Muda is the most diffuse. However, it is also the easiest waste to
see. To make sustainable change, it should be addressed after Muri and
Mura, as you can see on the chart I drew this morning [Figure 5.3].” A
trainee interrupted Daniel and asked him if he could elaborate a little
bit more. Daniel replied, “I mean, it is very easy to see Muda. Even for a
beginner, a few cycle times will suffice. When it comes to Mura, you need
a much longer observation, as well as more education. Identifying Muri,
I mean ergonomic strain, which needs both more knowledge and more
sophisticated tools. Talking about implementation, I will simply repeat
myself again: To reduce Muda in a sustainable way, you need to take care
of Muri and Mura first.* We will discuss this point again shortly. This is
basically the message of this chart [Figure 5.3].”

Muda
Tra

ion

Mura
inin

at
nt
g

me
ple

Muri
Im

FIGURE 5.3
Muda is the easiest waste to see or train for, but it should be addressed after Muri and
Mura.

* For more details, refer to the first and the second books of the series, respectively: Implementing
Standardized Work: Measuring Operators’ Performance and Implementing Standardized Work:
Writing Standardized Work Forms.
34 • Implementing Standardized Work

Max

Performance
Operator

Min
Hassle Pain WMSD
Work Conditions
WMSD = Work-related Musculoskeletal Disorders

FIGURE 5.4
Operator performance is affected as the operator begins to feel the effects of an ill-
designed workstation.

Daniel felt the time was right to underscore the key objectives once
again:

Please remember what our key objectives are: reaching waste-free and
stable operator work. Naturally, we will be focusing on the operator work
method: his or her motion, following his or her legs, feet, and arms. Try to
see if there is waste that can be eliminated by suppressing some movement
or arranging the sequence differently. It is mostly about eliminating Muda
here. Now, as we saw a few minutes ago, for the Muda to be removed in a
sustainable way, we need to eliminate external causes of unevenness, or
Mura. The main one comes from the part-feeding systems, equipment, or
machine. Besides part-feeding bins or systems, we also ought to focus on
machine problems. The main ones and the most visible ones are break-
downs, stoppages, and changeovers. I will come back to this specific point
regarding machines later. Another thing we need to be focusing on to
sustain waste reduction is Muri. The biggest impact of Muri is when the
operator is overburdened. Therefore, we will be looking to improve work
conditions, which are mostly ergonomics, postures, and unsafe behaviors.
As you may see on the chart that I just drew, work conditions have a big
impact on worker performance* [Figure 5.4].

* Although the curve is a rough representation or the evolution of worker performance as a func-
tion of the work conditions, it is largely supported by several research works, including the ones
by H. Monod. Also, data collected by Alain Patchong, the author, and his colleagues have shown
that there is a nearly linear correlation between an operator performance and his or her work
conditions.
 Tachinbo • 35

The chart in Figure 5.4 shows the performance of an operator decreas-

ing as work conditions degrade. Daniel explained that the most impor-
tant point was not the details of each bump of the curve, but its trend
depicting operator performance versus work conditions. He then went
on to add:

I would like to take this opportunity to insist on an often-ignored fact:

“Work doesn’t need to be a pain!” Degraded work conditions hinder an
operator’s performance. It starts with hassle, then becomes pain, and ends
up as an injury. As the process continues, the worker’s body performs
poorer and poorer until full stoppage, when injury arrives. As our regional
HSE [health, safety, and environment] manager always says: “What beats
your people beats your rate!” There is a clear link here. Therefore, remember
that every time the company improves worker conditions, it is neither lost
money nor a philanthropist deed. It’s a win–win. It’s a win for the worker
who can avoid WMSDs [work-related musculoskeletal disorders] and enjoy
a good life, and it’s a win for the company, whose productivity increases.

Daniel paused for a few seconds, then moved to the flip chart. It was
time to refocus on Tachinbo’s key points.

Let me summarize our mental process so far [Figure 5.5]. Remember our

initial objective was improvement. To improve, we need to remove waste.
Objective: Main sources Main kinds of quick
Eliminate waste of waste improvements

Operator
Worker’s motion
method
Muda
Operator’s job
Machine sequence
Mura
Small equipment
Work ideas to improve
Muri conditions Operator
work conditions

FIGURE 5.5
Standardized Work Tachinbo results must be related to worker motion, job sequence, and
small equipment ideas. The focus is on the operator.
36 • Implementing Standardized Work

I told you that we had three kinds of wastes: Muda, Mura, and Muri.
Remember the three-legged stool. We then saw that there were three main
sources for those wastes: worker methods, work conditions, and machine
stoppages. This is the spirit of Tachinbo in general. Now, remember that
we are using Tachinbo here within the framework of Standardized Work
implementation to capture quick, simple, zero-CAPEX improvements, and
ideally, the ones directly related to the operator. Fixing machine problems
will mostly need deeper analysis and more time to implement. While we
are on the shop floor, we can take note of these points and communicate
them to the plant’s engineering department. However, these points are
clearly not our target.
Now, because we are focusing on quick actions, the type of fixes we
should be looking at are the ones related to operators’ motions, opera-
tors’ job sequences, and small equipment ideas to improve operators’ work
conditions. The question is how to tactically achieve those three kinds of
improvement cheaply. Well, there are four cheap actions that can be imple-
mented. As you can see on the chart [Figure 5.6], it’s not like “one action,
one improvement.” For instance, one of these types of actions will have an
impact on two kinds of improvements. In effect, a change in task sequence,
in combination with Standardized Work in Process [SWIP], which will by

Main kinds of quick

improvements
Operator Operator’s job Small
motion sequence equipment
ideas to
improve
Operator
work
conditions

Change task sequence, combination, and

Standardized Work in Process × ×
4 Cheapest ways to improve

Compact layout to reduce motion

×

Simple equipment improvements that

enhance parts supply to improve ×
operators’ work conditions

Simple equipment & ideas improvement

to reduce time, improve safety/ × × ×
ergonomics and quality…

FIGURE 5.6
The four cheapest actions to improve operator motion, job sequence, and work conditions.
 Tachinbo • 37

What beats your people beats your rate! There is a clear link here.
Therefore, remember that every time the company improves worker
conditions, it is neither lost money nor a philanthropist deed. It’s
a win–win. It’s a win for the worker who can avoid WMSDs and
enjoy a good life, and it’s a win for the company, whose productivity
increases.

definition improve the operator job sequence, will also help to reduce his
or her motion. Conversely, to improve work conditions, one should chiefly
focus on material supply at the workstation, which, in general, is the big-
gest source of work condition degradation. However, other small equip-
ment ideas unrelated to material feeding could improve work conditions as
well. Okay, those four cheap actions [Figure 5.6] are definitely the kinds of
actions that can be implemented quickly with little effort—I will even say
that they can be carried out within hours.

After the proposed action, estimating the benefit of each proposal is

the next step, Daniel explained. A participant raised her hand and made
the following remark: “Daniel, I do not see the point of wasting time on
an estimate that is probably wrong.” Daniel thanked the person for the
opportunity to explain.

Well, the first reason for doing an estimate, whatever its accuracy, is that
you need to base your selection or prioritization on something. The second,
and most important, reason is that it will help you to learn a lot later. How?
Well, we are clearly in the Plan-Do-Check-Act [PDCA] cycle. Coming up
with your best estimate is the “Plan” phase of the PDCA; then will come
the implementation phase (Do). You will be able to see the gap between
your initial estimate and the result of the implementation; this is the
“Check” phase. This gap is the best measure of your initial understanding
of the physics of the process you are trying to improve. It shows how close
you came to hitting your target. Ultimately, what comes next is the most
important of all. Explaining this gap is a unique opportunity to learn and
spread the knowledge, which leads to the “Act” phase of PDCA.
Now, let me tell you something. The best way to make an estimate is
not to sit in your office and crunch questionable numbers. As always, and
whenever it is possible, you will need to go to the shop floor and experi-
ment or, more precisely, perform a mock-up. Use whatever you can find
around you: cardboard, people—in a word, all assets available. Use them
to emulate the real situation. Based on this mock-up, you will be able to
38 • Implementing Standardized Work

achieve your best estimate. In general, there is rarely a better estimate. To

support your communication during prioritization and later, take pictures
and shoot videos during your mock-ups. Using video can be helpful as it
allows you to clearly share your ideas with the rest of the group: Video of
the current situation and video of the mock-up are used as the basis for the
estimate. Videos are an excellent way to communicate your ideas.

Daniel had been talking for many minutes now. To relax the atmo-
sphere a little bit, Daniel concluded with a German phrase well popu-
larized by Thomas in the plant: “Alles klar?” The audience responded
with laughter.
After those explanations, it was time to apply the learning to the simu-
lation. Daniel asked each group to have their operator run a few cycles
again while the other members observed. He handed out a few Post-its®
and explained that each group would have 15 minutes to write down sug-
gestions for improvement, agree on which ones they would like to display,
and then stick them on the chart he unveiled (Figure 5.7). Daniel insisted
that the group agreement at this level was merely a prescreening. The
whole group would do final selection and prioritization later when all the
teams came together. He asked the trainees to classify their suggestions in
four columns corresponding to their impact: safety, quality, cost (mostly
Each group brainstorms and presents
Kaizen Improvement Ideas (5 minutes)
Safety Quality Cost Productivity

Operator
Motion

Job
Sequence

Small
Equipment
Ideas

All groups share ideas, and agree on which ones to implement.

FIGURE 5.7
After agreement, each group’s improvement ideas are written on Post-its and placed on
the chart.
 Tachinbo • 39

material waste reduction), and productivity. As someone remarked, a sug-

gestion could have potential impacts in several areas; Daniel explained
that they would have to place the suggestion in the area that fit the best, in
other words, where it produced the biggest impact. He also reminded that
proposals should be performed in two sequential phases: first, free sug-
gestions, then selection of the best ones based on the group’s estimate of
benefit. “Please do not mix both; creativity first then selection next. This is
the most efficient way I know,” he stated. “If you do not follow this advice,
you get yourself quickly stuck in arguments, and hours later you will still
be fighting with some ‘blood on the walls,’” Daniel concluded jokingly.
The task was now completed, and the dedicated chart was full of ideas
from all teams. Daniel asked each team to come forward and share their
proposals using videos. After all teams had shared their proposal, it was
time for Daniel to conclude the Tachinbo session. He explained that this
was what he had to say regarding Tachinbo in general. He then added, “I
have developed some tools that can help implement Tachinbo in a very
effective and focused way. I will share them with you later.” He then sug-
gested moving to the next module of the training. As the previous ritual
goes, he asked Thomas if he would like to summarize. Thomas went to
the paperboard and laid out a few bullet points about the main steps
of Tachinbo (Figure 5.8). Daniel thanked Thomas before moving to the
next part, dedicated to prioritization of listed actions.
40 • Implementing Standardized Work

Tachinbo = Intensive Observation

Goal: Find quick actions to reduce Muda, Mura, and Muri.
Steps:
 Observation:
   • Split in several groups.
   • Each group makes observations on the shop floor in a specific area, identifying quick wins related to
safety, quality, cost, and delivery.
    Cheapest actions: (1) compacting layout; (2) changing job combination sequence and SWIP;
(3) improving material supply; (4) small equipment ideas to improve safety, ergonomics,
quality, and productivity.
   • One person per group videotapes/takes pictures.
  Estimate benefit and effort:
   • Each team estimates the benefit and effort of proposed actions.
   • Mock up and take pictures and videos.
 Sharing:
   • Based on the estimate, each group selects which ideas should be shared with the others.
   • Each group shares its proposals with the other groups using video to ease understanding.
 Deliverable: List of actions.

FIGURE 5.8
Main steps of Tachinbo.
6
Prioritizing and Executing Actions

Thomas took advantage of the change of subject to have a quick discussion

with Daniel. It was somewhat related to the discussion they had previ-
ously. He wanted to inform him that he would be leaving the training
in an hour or two, with no certainty about the duration. He just had a
phone call from his assistant, who informed him that the labor union had
agreed to meet him this afternoon to discuss the future of the plant. He
told Daniel that, for the time being, he could not give him more details but
promised to share more with him later. Daniel thanked Thomas for letting
him know, then refocused on the training.
Daniel started this module about prioritization with a quotation. “A
famous author who knew Japan very well once said ‘All good work is done
the way ants do things, little by little.’* I think almost everyone in this
room would agree with that. Now, the question is which ‘little thing’ do
we start with? Well, this is where you need to be good at prioritizing.” Over
time, since his early days of giving trainings, Daniel had noticed that very
often, after a workshop on the shop floor, people would end up with a list of
actions and not know how to proceed, perhaps overwhelmed. Subsequent
follow-ups would show little implementation of identified actions. Daniel
therefore decided to include in the training a simple common tool for pri-
oritization. It had received a positive reception over the years. It became
very popular. Some plants even used it in their own workshops. As he
always explained it: “Prioritization precedes action; it is the ground zero
of any serious execution. Also, keep in mind that it must be a team effort,
which thereby validates its highest commitment toward execution.”
The prioritization tool Daniel talked about was a chart that had two axes
(Figure  6.1). The horizontal axis represented the amount of effort to be

* Quotation from Lafcadio Hearn that can be read in Simple Principles to Excel at Your Job by
Alex A. Lluch (WS Publishing Group, San Diego, CA, 2008).

41
42 • Implementing Standardized Work

Just-do-its
To be implemented right away.
High

2 Most advisable actions

To be implemented within a
few days.
Benefit
Median

Possibly advisable actions

1 3 Additional analysis might
be necessary to make a
decision. Also some amount
of resources might be necessary.

4
Least advisable actions
Low

These actions should not

be considered.

Low Median High

Effort

FIGURE 6.1
Charts to be used to set priorities.

invested in the implementation of the action. The vertical axis represented

the benefit that could be derived from implementation of the same action.
Both axes had three levels: low, medium, and high. On this chart, four
areas were numbered from 1 to 4. Daniel explained:

Area number one is dedicated to actions that request little effort. Benefit
can be low to high. Because those actions need little effort, they must be
implemented right away. Area number two is reserved for the most desirable
actions. This refers to actions whose effort is low to mid-medium with a good
level of benefit. Area number three includes possibly desirable actions. Effort
and benefit are in the medium range. Most of those actions need some prepa-
ration. After the preparations, part of those actions will be implemented and
the rest discarded due to their low benefit/effort ratio. The last portion of the
chart, area number four, includes the least-advisable actions. Yielded benefits
are low, while efforts are high. Those actions need, in general, some prepara-
tion or study activity to be validated and thereafter implemented. Unless the
benefit is in the upper end, these actions are mostly scrapped.

After this explanation of the prioritization chart, Daniel suggested:

I now propose we proceed to the simulation. It will basically consist of mov-

ing your Post-its from the previous chart [Figure 5.7] to the prioritization
 Prioritizing and Executing Actions • 43

Quick and cheap improvement Typical priority Implementation

Change task sequence, combination, and 1
Standardized Work in Process to eliminate Same day
unnecessary motion and wait

Compact layout to reduce motion Same day to

1 and 2
(walk and hands motion) same week

Simple equipment improvements that enhance

Same week to
parts supply to improve operators’ work 2 and 3
same month
conditions (variability, ergonomics)

Simple equipment & improvement ideas to reduce Same week to

2 to 4
time, improve safety/ergonomics and quality… same quarter

FIGURE 6.2
Most common actions to improve quickly without huge investment.

chart [Figure  6.1] or the trash bin. Please place them based on benefits–
effort according to the assessment made previously. Again, this is team-
work; therefore, we will be looking for consensus. Before I let you go ahead,
I would like to quickly review the kinds of quick improvement actions that
can be expected and their typical priority level.

Daniel displayed a chart he had prepared for the training (Figure  6.2).
“Well, there are roughly four types of actions: the same ones we men-
tioned before [Figure 5.6].”
This time, Daniel wanted to be more specific than previously.

The first category is the kind of actions related to changes in task sequence,
combination, and Standardized Work in Process to eliminate unnecessary
motion and wait. These actions are the easiest ones. They can be imple-
mented right away—I mean, at worst, the same day. These are just-do-its,
which are ranked priority 1. The second type of actions consists of compact-
ing layouts to reduce motion (walking and hand motion). These are typically
priority 1 or 2. The third category includes simple equipment improvements
that enhance parts supply to improve operators’ work conditions (variabil-
ity, ergonomics). Most of those actions can be implemented the same week.
These are typically priority 2 and 3 actions. The fourth and last category is
comprised of simple equipment improvements and ideas to reduce time or
improve safety and quality, and everyone is free to propose these.

Daniel then concluded: “Now it is time to let you discuss the priorities of
your actions.” Before the prioritization started, Daniel had an important
point to make, something the trainees had heard before, but was worth
44 • Implementing Standardized Work

repeating once more: “No action should be considered if its implementa-

tion hampers safety or quality.”
To nurture trainees’ ownership, Daniel usually uses a local person to
lead this type of exercise. “Eric, would you mind leading the group on this
activity?” Eric happily accepted the role of facilitator.
The whole group agreed to a set of improvements and listed them in a
table (Figure 6.3). The group selected seven ideas that they considered to
be priority 1 and 2. Daniel was a little doubtful when it came to the dis-
cussion with the supplier to certify that it would be able to deliver 100%
good-quality parts. Steve argued: “Normally, they should already be deliv-
ering 100% good parts. This is not like an additional service that we are
asking from them. We will simply have to reiterate this requirement and
enforce this request. At the beginning, we could set up a group to track
and validate this point.” Daniel, a strong believer in group commitment,
caved in and let the group keep the action on its list. He underscored,
to conclude the sequence about prioritization: “In the shop floor situa-
tion, the output of prioritization is an action plan, including among other
information some key bits like the following: the person in charge, the
committed start date, as well as the estimated date of completion and the
status of the progress.”
Daniel moved on to discuss implementation: “Implementation is really
the first materialization of the reward for the group’s work. Think about
this: You are getting to the end of an intensive weeklong workshop, par-
ticipants are tired, and some of them are starting to have doubts about
what they are doing here—and voilà! Now they can see clear and con-
crete results of their work. Remember, these quick wins I mentioned
earlier today are a big motivator.” Daniel stopped for a few seconds to
glance around, then carried on: “As I said before, be fast in implementa-
tion. No procrastination! Remember, as my father used to say, citing a
famous person, ‘The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying
away small stones.’* Therefore, my advice is to go for imperfect execution
with small gains rather than waiting for a perfect one with big gains
that may never happen. If it is an improvement compared to the status
quo and does not degrade safety and quality, then go for it.” Daniel also
explained that besides safety and quality checks, the gap between initial
estimate and the actual result should be checked as well and eventually
explained for learning purposes.
* William Faulkner’s quotation that can be found in SuperStar Selling: 12 Keys to Becoming a Sales
Superstar by Paul McCord (Morgan James Publishing, Garden City, NY 2008).
 Quick and cheap improvement Proposed actions

Eliminate wait: all wait = 0

Job sequence, combination, & Standardized
= > inspect new t-shirt, Fold and inspect pressed
Work In Process (SWIP)
t-shirt during auto cycle (SWIP = 2 in place of 1)

Motion/layout Eliminate motion: all walk = 0

= > New very compact layout

Ergonomic material supply

Simple equipment (components supply) = > Lift the table (work station) to achieve better
ergonomic height (around 1.1 meters)

Small equipment (+ programming)

= > to maintain the hot ironing press safely opened
= > Install 2 buttons on each side in place of one
to close press safely.
Simple equipment & improvement ideas to = > Further improvement after closing press starts
reduce time, improve safety/ergonomics, automatically
and quality… Simple ideas
No inspection of incoming T-shirt
(customer quality certification)
= > detailed Step 2 eliminated*
no key points on inspection in major Step 1

FIGURE 6.3
Result of Tachinbo on the T-shirt-packing simulation.
Prioritizing and Executing Actions • 45
46 • Implementing Standardized Work

STW Improvement Story

Improvement: –Title given to the improvement action Date of start:
Team: –People in change of the action Date of completion:

1 Problem Description: 3 Proposed Solution

Use drawing, sketches or pictures
Use drawing, sketches or pictures

2 Cause Analysis:
Use charts and a few words to describe analysis 4 Solution Check:
Use numbers
chart to show
Before, After
an initial estimate

FIGURE 6.4
Standardized Work improvement story to be used for communication and progress
reporting.

Daniel commented about the need to communicate about selected

actions: “I am sure that the Excellence System guys have the right doc-
ument that you guys can use. However, I would like to submit this one
to you. It is a form that will help you tell the story of your improvement
[Figure 6.4].” Daniel handed out to each group a few samples of a docu-
ment, “Standardized Work Improvement Story.” He explained that it had
an oversimplified Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) structure and included
four parts: problem description, cause analysis, proposed solution, and
solution check.
“The last point you do not want to forget,” concluded Daniel, “is to cel-
ebrate. In the real situation, bring together the actors of the improvement
and celebrate the success. The most important person around should chair
the celebration—I mean the plant manager.”
Before closing the session about prioritization and execution, Daniel
proposed that Thomas make the summary. Thomas went to the paper-
board and wrote down the main learning points on prioritization
(Figure 6.5).
 Prioritizing and Executing Actions • 47

Key Points about Prioritization and Execution

• It is the ground zero of execution.
• It is teamwork, the first commitment of the team toward execution.
• Main steps:
• Classify into four categories based on estimated benefit and effort: just-do-its, most advisable
actions, possibly advisable actions, least-advisable actions. Use videos to share. Do mock-ups to
estimate benefit.
• Plan: Draw an action plan, including priority 1 to 3 actions, responsible person, and start/end
dates. Scrap category 4 actions.
• Implement the first category of actions the same day; category 2 should be taken care of within a
week; category 3 must not exceed 3 weeks.
• Checks:
    • Verify that implementation produces expected results (safety, quality, and cost).
    • For learning purposes, gaps between estimates (Tachinbo phase) and actual results should be
explained.
• Communicate: Use Standardized Work improvement story or any local document to communicate
about action.
• Do something imperfect now; improve later.
• No action allowed if safety and quality are degraded.

FIGURE 6.5
Key learning about prioritization and execution: classify, plan, implement, check, and
communicate.

After Thomas’s summary, Daniel asked each group to get ready to run
the T-shirt-packing simulation with an improved process and to take the
time necessary to update the Standardized Work forms. This was the main
subject of the next training module.

Prioritization precedes action; it is the ground zero of any seri-

ous execution. Also, keep in mind that it must be teamwork. Most
importantly, it is the first commitment of the team toward execution.
7
Updating Standardized Work
Forms and Expanding

Daniel conceded:

As you have probably noticed, I am a big fan of PDCA [Plan-Do-Check-Act].

Look, it is a very powerful method that increases the chances to achieve the
best results wherever it is applied. Well, some of you have noticed that,
but I want to acknowledge this to everyone. The training session we are
now starting, “Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding,” is,
in effect, nothing else than the “Act” part of the PDCA approach applied
to process improvement. I could have used the title “Acting” as well, but I
found it less explicit.

After this short clarification, Daniel had an important message to pass

on. “It is better to have a quick-and-dirty version of the document rather
than none. So, do not leave this for tomorrow in order to make it perfect,
just as mentioned previously for execution. Do it right away! Do it quick
and dirty!” Daniel then moved to the middle of the room and asked the
group to run the T-shirt-packing simulation again, take the needed time,
and update their Standardized Work forms. Daniel had saved their previ-
ous forms. After the group completed the task, he asked the group to tape
the “before” and “after” forms side by side so that the comparison could be
obvious. As usual, Daniel interacted with the group to observe and answer
questions. The work was completed, and he went back to the middle of the
room again.
“It’s now time to review your results,” Daniel started. “Before we begin
commenting on the results, let me settle a point John made earlier today
about the speed of the machine being the biggest problem. Now, John,
based on the result of your work, do you still think so?” John had no choice

49
50 • Implementing Standardized Work

but to bow to the plain truth of the facts depicted on the Standardized
Work combination chart (Figure  7.1): “It is clear that the machine time
is not on the critical path of the cycle time; there is no doubt that it has
no impact on the capacity of the overall process.” Thomas jumped in
and insisted on the need for everyone to base his or her judgment on
real data coming from the Gemba.* He also emphasized that his people
should be focusing more on so-called zero-CAPEX improvement, which,
he believed, could be found everywhere in the plant. He went on to con-
clude that this was exactly why he had decided to implement Standardized
Work, which encompassed, among others, these two principles: the use
of real data from the shop floor and a focus on zero-CAPEX improve-
ment. Daniel thought there was no need to comment more on the point.
He thanked John for providing this teachable moment to the group.
Daniel asked the group to comment on the differences between the
before and after Standardized Work documents. Sarah, the human
resources (HR) manager, who had been mostly silent, raised her hand and
commented: “First of all, I am amazed by how much such a process can
be improved. On Team 1, it looks big [Figure  7.1], never mind Team 4,
that started with a cycle time of 67 seconds and is now running close to
17 seconds. That is really a huge improvement.” Steve, the guy who knows
the numbers, confirmed: “It should be around 75% improvement.” Sarah
then proceeded: “Thanks, Steve. I trust your numbers as always.” Then,
she refocused on her earlier point. “By working on two T-shirts during
the same cycle time, we were able to eliminate the worker wait time. Also,
we have compacted the workstation, as you may see on the Standardized
Work chart [Figure  7.2]. A highly compact area put the worker at risk
of body twist. To prevent operators from hurting themselves, we added
a safety point to T-shirt picking (Figure 7.3).” Sarah breathed a few sec-
onds and continued: “Yes, there is something else I wanted to mention.
As we have discussed previously, we all agree 100% that quality checks
before T-shirt folding are simply a waste if, by contract, our supplier is
expected to provide us with good-quality products. This is something
we should enforce even more in our plant.” The plant quality manager
acquiesced, which gave some encouragement to Sarah. “If they can-
not deliver a good-quality product, they should pay a fine as agreed in
the contract.” Sarah concluded her intervention with comments on the
Yamazumihyo charts (Figure  7.4). “The before and after Yamazumihyo
* Gemba is a Japanese word that refers to the shop floor, where production is done.
 Before
Standardized Work Combination Table
TAKT TIME: 20 seconds COMMENTS
TITLE T-shirt Packing BY:Team 1 Volume: 17, 280 T-shirts per day
DATE: June, 2012

TIME TIME GRAPH (seconds)

N° Major steps
MANU AUTO WAIT WALK 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Pick up and inspect T-shirt

1 4
3
Load, start and unload press
2 1 10 10
2
Fold and inspect T-shirt
3 9
2
Store T-shirt
4 2
4
Cycle Time

Takt Time
TOTAL 16 10 10 11 SYMBOLES: - MANUAL: AUTO: WALKING: WAIT:

After

Standardized Work Combination Table

TAKT TIME: 20 seconds COMMENTS
TITLE T-shirt Packing - Improved BY: Team 1 Volume: 17,280 T-shirts per day
DATE: June, 2012

TIME TIME GRAPH (seconds)

N° Major steps
MANU AUTO WAIT WALK 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Unload press (T-shirt 1)

1 1
0
Pick up & inspect new t-shirt, load and
2 start mach. (T-shirt 2) 3 10
0
Fold, inspect and store ironed t-shirt
3 (T-shirt 1) 13
0

0
Takt Time

Cycle Time

SYMBOLES: - MANUAL: AUTO: WALKING: WAIT:

TOTAL 17 10 0 0

FIGURE 7.1
Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding • 51

Before and after Standardized Work combination table: Processing two T-shirts (1 and 2) at the same time helps eliminate operator’s wait time.
52 • Implementing Standardized Work

Before
Standardized Work Chart File name
Operations From: Ext
Product: T-shirt Area/Process: T-Shirt Packing Date: June, 2012
to: Ext.
Standard WIP
Takt Time
Quality
checks
20 s
Safety
T-shirt
1
bin Motion
With parts
Cycle Time Without parts

37 s Production
4 Name:
2 3

T-shirt Press Folding date:

Number of Table
Storage (clock)
Standard
WIP IE
Name:

1
date:

Quality
nom:

date:

After

Standardized Work Chart File name

Operations From: Ext
Product: T-shirt Area/Process: T-Shirt Packing Date: June, 2012
to: Ext.
Standard WIP
Takt Time
Quality
checks
20 s
Safety

Motion
With parts
Cycle Time Without parts
Storage
T-shirt

17 s
3 Production
1 T-shirt Name:
2 bin
Folding Press date:
Number of
Table (clock)
Standard
WIP IE
Name:

2
date:

Quality
nom:

date:

FIGURE 7.2
Before and after Standardized Work charts.
 Before
Document NO.: 1
Home Appliance Inc. Operator Work Instructions Version 00 Pant Team 1
Rev. Number: 1

Reference: Designation: Area T-shirt packing Mach Page: 1/1

No. Major Steps = Safety = Quality = Tip Temps: Drawings, Photos, etc.

Sleeve and garment hems must be flat and wide enough to prevent curling. Neckband Bond on sleeve hem
1

1 Pick up and inspect T-shirt The neckline should rest flat against the body
The neckline should recover properly after being slightly stretched

Garment hem
2 Start button
2 Load, start, and unload press
Maintain your hands out of the press while it is closing

Keep your hands

in the
Inspect the overall quality of the folding. hachured area
3 Fold and inspect T-shirt
Check that the logo is visible on the front side of the T-shirt

3
Logo
HA
4 Store T-shirt

Author Signature/Date VERIFICATION: Signature/Dates APPROVAL Signature/ OPERATOR Signature/ Comments

Name: Quality: Name: Date Date
HSE:
Function: Group Leader Function:

FIGURE 7.3
Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding • 53

Before and after Operator Work instructions. (Continued)

 After
Document No.: 1
Home Appliance Inc. Operator Work Instructions Version 00 Pant Team 1
Rev. Number 1

Reference: Designation: Area T-shirt packing Mach Page: 1/1

No. Major Steps = Safety = Quality = Tip Temps: Schema, Photos, etc.

2
1 Unload press T-shirts 1 Start buttons

Keep your hand

in the hachured
Pick up & inspect new T-shirts, area
2 Rotate around right foot while keeping your body rigid
load and start Mach. T-shirts 2
54 • Implementing Standardized Work

Logo
HA
Inspect the overall quality of the folding.
Fold, inspect and store 3
3 ironed T-shirts 1
Check that the logo is visible on the front side of the T-shirt

Author Signature/ VERIFICATION Signature/ APPROVAL Signature/ OPERATOR Signature/Date Comments

Name: Date Quality: Date Name: Date
HSE:
Function: Group Leader: Function:

FIGURE 7.3 (CONTINUED)

Before and after Operator Work instructions.
 Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding • 55

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Improved
Team 1 Team 2 Team 3 Team 4
Team 1

CT range beyond target CT 16 27 55 23 8

Code change time per part 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Material change time per part 1.95 2.65 3.50 3.00 1.95
Target cycle time per part 37 61 42 67 17
Takt time 20 20 20 20 20
Cycle time average 42.30 66.2 52.7 75.5 19.5

FIGURE 7.4
Before (all four teams) and after (Team 1) Yamazumihyo chart (time in seconds).

charts show a less-impressive reduction on the variability. However, the 3

seconds left between the target cycle time (17 seconds) and the Takt time
(20 seconds) will be enough to absorb remaining variability. Well, that’s
all I wanted to say.”
Daniel thanked Sarah and congratulated her for her substantial com-
ments. John, still amazed by how the increase of SWIP* from one to two
helped eliminate wait time, commented on this point. “As the ‘After’
Standardized Work combination chart depicts, the operator does not have
to wait for the machine anymore; the operator can proceed with a value-
adding task while the machine is running [Figure  7.1]. I clearly under-
stand now why SWIP is said to be one of the four elements of Standardized
Work. It is very defining—when it changes, everything else changes com-
pletely.” Daniel added that increasing the SWIP was a common way to
increase worker efficiency and sometimes machine utilization. He then
asked if someone else wanted to comment further.
After a few seconds of silence, Daniel refocused his question. “All
right, I remember that after we finished writing the Standardized Work
documents, some of you asked me how they could be used to conduct
* SWIP stands for Standardized Work in Process and refers to the number of parts being processed.
It is one of the four elements of Standardized Work. For more details, refer to the previous book of
the series: Implementing Standardized Work: Writing Standardized Work Forms.
56 • Implementing Standardized Work

improvement.* Well, now that you have experienced their usage in process
improvement, I want to return the question to you. How did you use those
documents to foster your improvement ideas?” The first reaction came
from Steve, the industrial engineering manager:

The Standardized Work combination table is very interesting. At first

glance, it is quite easy to identify what I would call the critical path of the
cycle time. It is very clear whether a certain improvement will have an
impact on the cycle time. In simple terms, if an activity is on the critical
path, then its improvement will have an impact on the cycle time; oth-
erwise, there will be no impact. It is also very easy to see the walk time,
the wait time, as well as the combination of tasks between the operator
and the machine. Wait and walk are obvious wastes that make sense to
eliminate. Reduced wait means better manpower utilization. Less walk
time may sometimes translate into better manpower utilization or addi-
tional wait time. In any case, it will always lead to improved ergonomics!
The beauty here is that, as we saw earlier today, better ergonomics means
better operator performance. So, at the end of the day, even when walk
reduction is not on the so-called critical path of the cycle time, it still
makes sense to reduce it as it will reduce operator fatigue and improve
operator performance.

The next person to intervene was Eric. He chose to talk about the
Standardized Work chart (Figure 7.2):

It gives, at a glance, a clear idea about walk time and the layout in general.
The number of crossings between arrows shows the amount of motion. As
you told us earlier, the goal is to have the fewest crossing arrows as possible,
something that is close to a C-shape, in an as-compact-as-possible layout.
Here, for instance, we went from one crossing point in the before chart, to
zero in the after chart.

Thomas then discussed how the Yamazumihyo was the perfect tool to
see all variability, special cause, and common cause. “It shows where to
focus first.” He commented:

The most important point about this chart is that you can see how your
process is doing versus the Takt time. When the process cycle time is below
* This passage refers to the previous book of the series: Implementing Standardized Work: Writing
Standardized Work Forms.
 Updating Standardized Work Forms and Expanding • 57

the Takt time, the chart will tell you if it is enough below to absorb cur-
rent variability. It really helps answer the first question, the level of prior-
ity of the improvement, before launching any improvement. For sure, all
improvements are valuable. But, since we do not have unlimited resources,
we have to make choices from time to time. As a plant manager, this tool
is just perfect for prioritization. Yes, it clearly helps identify which process
to focus on first!

Daniel could not agree more.

Daniel concluded by mentioning the operator work instructions.
“As you all know, key points are where the method is conserved.
Remember, these are points that are critical to successful execution of
the method by the worker! They are therefore highly useful, especially
when you need to compare different operators or record best practices
to be disseminated.” Daniel summarized the points illustrated on a
chart (Figure 7.5). This concluded the module on Standardized Work
forms updating.
Daniel then moved to the other part of the session regarding expansion
of improvement to other processes in the plant or elsewhere:

Use of Standardized Work forms in process improvement

Shows the critical path*
Standardized Work Shows wait time**
Combination Table Shows walk time***
Shows task combination****
Shows amount of walk***
Standardized Work
Shows wasteful job sequences or motions*****
Chart
Shows spread of layout
Operator Work
Helps identify or describe key points
Instructions

Shows amplitude of special cause and common cause variation

Yamazumihyo
Shows the extra-capacity needed to absorb variability

*It helps identify actions with impact on the overall cycle time.
** Wait time reduction may not reduce overall cycle time but will improve manpower utilization.
*** In general, reduction will at best reduce the overall cycle time, and at least improve ergonomics.
****A better Combination Table and additional Standardized Work In Process can help reduce cycle time.
*****The best motion should be C-shaped, which has the minimum back and forth.

FIGURE 7.5
Standardized Work forms are critical tools of process improvement.
58 • Implementing Standardized Work

In a real-case situation, the focus up to this stage is only one, or a few,

machines or workstations to avoid dispersing the team’s energy. After
updating Standardized Work forms, just like in any PDCA-like approach,
you need to think about ways to extend validated improvements to other
similar processes. Obviously, you should first start in your plant, then
make sure that those improvements are also expanded to other plants. This
generalization step belongs to zero-CAPEX actions. Look, this is clearly
the kind of thing we are looking for. Think about it: The solution is imple-
mented and validated; there is no risk! The only thing you need to do now
is to simply “copy and paste” it somewhere else and reap the benefits. By the
way, note that skipping this step amounts to creating a black book of your
own, which is exactly what Standardized Work endeavors to eliminate in
the first place. Remember what we said earlier today. Now, in practice, you
should do it right away. If this is not possible the same day, then include
this in the action plan we mentioned before—indeed, make sure that there
is someone held responsible, with start and end dates.

It was now time to move to the shop floor. Before that, Daniel first
needed to have Thomas sum up a few key points of the learning as per
their ritual (Figure 7.6). Then, he explained that, before hitting the shop
floor, he had something to share. This was a set of tools he had designed to
support Tachinbo and make it easier for beginners.

Key Messages about Acting

• Better to have quick-and-dirty forms than none.
• Updated forms are the first materialization/reward of the group work—use them to celebrate.
• Everything else known about Standardized Work forms stands:
• Standardized Work combination table shows cycle time-critical path (help define priorities), wait
time, walk time.
• Standardized Work chart shows motion through the number of crossing points and shows layout
compactness, walk.
• Operator work instructions document helps identify best practices to be disseminated.
• Yamazumihyo chart shows variability to help define priorities.
• Increasing Standardized Work in Process can help reduce manpower or machine utilization.
• Reduced walk (even when it has no impact on the cycle time) improves worker peformance.
• Think about generalization:
• Make sure that improvements are extended to similar processes (in the same plant first, then
elsewhere).

FIGURE 7.6
Key learning about updating Standardized Work forms and generalization.
  • 59

It is better to have a quick-and-dirty update of a document rather

than none. So, do not leave this for tomorrow in order to make it
perfect. Do it right away! Do it quick and dirty!

Skipping the generalization step amounts to creating a black book

of your own, which is exactly what Standardized Work endeavors to
eliminate in the first place.
8
Focused Tachinbo:
Workstation Assessment

Thomas had left the room when Daniel started the module on workstation
assessment. He had to attend the meeting with the labor union. Here, as
in many European countries, he knew that if he were to succeed, he would
need to make sure that, ideally, the union was on board, or at least not
opposed to his actions. He had decided to go for a transparent and plain
talk with the labor union. This was an unusual approach for a plant man-
ager. His predecessors had mostly been all but candid. By any account,
previous plant managers and the labor union had been playing a zero-sum
game: If you win, I lose; if you lose, I win. Promises had been made but
not kept on both sides. It was simply part of the business. Unfortunately,
this led to a long history of mistrust and lost opportunities. Those self-
inflicted injuries had long eroded the plant’s integrity and contributed to
the plant’s current dire conditions. The EMEA (Europe, Middle East, and
Africa) Manufacturing vice president would concede spontaneously: “We
have made big mistakes of our own; we need to have a radically different
approach toward labor unions.”
Thomas was there to implement, among other things, this new approach,
to build with the labor union a sense of “we are all in this together” and to
promote a new motto: “We win together, or we lose together”—no more
business as usual. For this fresh start, the regional senior management
believed that Thomas was the right person. As a non-French individual
with an international background, this would keep him away from a priori
judgment. Ironically, some considered his background to be his biggest
weakness. They thought that he would be “played like a puppet,” add-
ing: “He is not up to the labor union game.” Regional senior management
would equally admit the risk, and the biggest question in their minds

61
62 • Implementing Standardized Work

was: “Could we play a different game with the same people who have been
going the opposite way?” In the end, they believed that the urgency of the
situation was leaving them with fewer and fewer options, which inclined
them to take a chance and try something different.
As Thomas explained very candidly to Daniel on Wednesday evening
during their long discussion: “You can see this change positively or nega-
tively. The positive reading would be to say, ‘Wow, senior management is
thinking out of the box!’ The less-encouraging way would be to refer to
Anton Chekhov, who famously said: ‘When a lot of remedies are suggested
for a disease, that means it cannot be cured.’ Is this encouraging, creative,
out-of-the-box thinking or another of several remedies being tried on a des-
perate situation? Only the future will tell!” Whatever the rationale behind
what Thomas called the “new doctrine,” the good point was that it was com-
pletely in line with Thomas’s character. Therefore, he would not have to force
himself to follow through. More than anyone around, he was conscious of
being on uncharted terrain and therefore needed to exercise some caution.
Before moving to the module on the shop floor, Daniel wanted to give
participants a form that they could use to support Tachinbo on their
workstations. He had noticed over the years that telling people to stand up
in front of a workstation to observe did not work very well the first time.
“French are not Japanese,” he would say. “I cannot just do it Taiichi Ohno’s
way; people become bored quickly and lose focus.” To avoid the failures
he experienced at the beginning of the deployment of Standardized Work
training in the company, Daniel had developed two forms to help Tachinbo
practitioners keep focus. Those forms, which addressed the most common
points of weakness of workstations, were based on factual, understand-
able, and measurable elements. As he explained: “Two people using those
forms for an assessment should reach similar results.” Because the forms
were based on physical elements and served as guides to the user, they
were very successful. Most of the people who used them “like the way it
gives structure to guide the user to the right results step by step; you just
have to follow the forms and the process.” The other point he would make
is that, “These tools assess material supply. The main reason for that, as I
stated previously, is that in most industries, material supply is the biggest
source of waste. I mean the source of creation of Muda, Mura, and Muri.”
At this point, a participant interrupted Daniel with a question: “Daniel,
please could you tell us what is different or new versus the quick improve-
ment actions you mentioned earlier. I am talking about that chart over
there [Figure 6.2].” Daniel went to the chart pointed out by the participant
 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment • 63

Quick and cheap improvement Typical priority Implementation

Change task sequence, combination and 1
standardized work In process to eliminate Same day
unnecessary motion and wait
Workstation
Compact layout to reduce motion Same day to
1 and 2 Assessment Sheet
(walk and hands motion) same week

Simple equipment improvement that enhances

Same week to +
parts supply to improve operator’s work 2 and 3
same month
conditions (variability, ergonomics)

Simple equipment & ideas improvement to reduce Same week to Free generation
2 and 4
time, improve safety/ergonomics and quality… same quarter of ideas
Tachinbo list of actions = Results from workstation assessment sheet
+
Free generation of ideas (mainly quality and safety)

FIGURE 8.1
The Tachinbo list of actions will come from a structured process based on a workstation
assessment sheet and free generation of simple quick actions that improve safety, quality,
and cost and delivery.

and explained: “Actually, the first three rows are addressed by the work-
station assessment sheet. The last one, which I call free generation of ideas,
is not included in the assessment sheet [Figure  8.1]. Since by definition
free generation of ideas cannot be structured, I would say that the tools
I will share with you take care of whatever can be structured.” Daniel
moved to a chart displayed on the wall and carried on: “This is the first
form [Figure 8.2]. I have printed them out for you.” Daniel handed out two
sheets of paper to each participant.

Now, you all have two sheets of paper in your hands: The first one is an
exact copy of the form depicted on this wall [Figure 8.2]. The second sheet
[Figure 8.3] explains the main elements of the form. It is filled out to illus-
trate how it should be used: one per workstation. Now, let’s go step by step.
First, at each station you must list all components and tools requested in the
operation of the station. Then, you will have to assess it for the three kinds
of waste. I have selected the most frequent type of Mura, Muri, and Muda,
which I call “hit criteria.” As you can see on the chart [Figure  8.4], the
posture, number, position, and changes are the hit criteria related to Mura.
They define the four main invariants that must be achieved to reduce part-
picking-related variability: invariant posture, invariant number, invariant
position, and invariant time. This is what I call the “4Is.” The acid test is
that you need to be able to close your eyes and pick up exactly the part you
need, when you need it. In other words, parts supply is deemed optimized
when a blind person can perform the picking. 4Is are illustrated on this
paper I am handing out [Figure 8.5].
64 • Implementing Standardized Work

Workstation Assessment Sheet

conta g

o rk
ct
nce e
Post a

Posit c
Current

ges d
Workstation’s

Numb b

Heigh f

Twist h
i

and w
ure

ion

t
j

Wait
er

Walk
components or tool Main issue Measurement

Dista
Chan

Two-h
Body
1 Plastic component X O X X X X X O Distance/back feeding 100 cm

2 Metal structure X O X X X O O O Distance/back feeding 110 cm

3 Safety device O O O O X O O O Distance/back feeding 105 cm

4 Reinforcement sheet X O X O X O X O Ergonomics red

5 Rivets O X X O O X O O Height 40 cm

6 Beads O O X O X O X O Ergonomics red

7 Hammer X O O O O X O O Height 160 cm

8 Reveting tool X O O O X X O O Distance 100 cm

10

11

12

13

14

15

Final score° 38% 88% 38% 67% 25% 50% 63%100% N 10 15

For each component or tool listed in the first column, fill in:
a
“O” if operator’s posture is always constant from cycle to cycle, “X” otherwise
b
“O” if it easy to pickup the same number of components from cycle to cycle, “X” otherwise
c
“O” if its position of the part is always constant from cycle to cycle, “X” otherwise
d
“O” if all related periodical tasks (e.g., container change) are below 5% of the takt time, “X” otherwise
e
“O” if distance to operator is below 30 cm, “X” otherwise
f
“O” the height of the location of component or tool is between 750 mm and 1200 mm, “X” otherwise
g
“O” if operators has no body twist when grasping component or tool, “X” otherwise
h
“O” if operators has no body contact when grasping component or tool “X” otherwise

FIGURE 8.2
Workstation assessment sheet based on eleven key criteria. (Continued)

Daniel handed out a sheet with four pictures to each trainee. “As always,
a picture speaks more than a thousand words,” he paraphrased. Before
moving to the next part, Daniel felt the need to underscore, once more,
the need to eliminate Mura. “Remember, I told you earlier when we dis-
cussed work conditions that ‘Work doesn’t need to be a pain!’ Guess what,
work doesn’t need to be stressful either. I mean the operator should not be
forced to think to avoid making errors every time he or she is performing
a task. Everything should be natural…humm…automatic. Yes ‘automatic’
is the right word. Think about when you drive your car from home to your
workplace every morning or the other way when you return in the after-
noon. Most of the time you do not have to think… it requests minimum
effort, not mental load. It is almost like a plane on autopilot. Well this
 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment • 65

Workstation Assessment Sheet

Measurement with Gain m n

Improvement proposal proposed solutionk (sec)l
Opportunities/gains Priority

Kitting 30 cm 2 Ergonomics/Safety

Kitting 30 cm 3 Ergonomics, variability

Kitting 30 cm 2 Ergonomics/Safety

Sequencing green 2 Ergonomics, variability

Move rivet bin up 80 cm 1 Ergonomics, variability

New bead feeder green 1 Variability

Bring tool down < 110 cm 1 Ergonomics, variability

Movetool closer 30 cm 2 Ergonomics, variability

p
Total gains (sec) 14

i
Specify the main issue related to this component feeding
j
Charaterize this main issue by a measurement (distance, time,…)
k
Give your best estimate of the new measurement when improvement applied
l
Give your best estimate gain is seconds when improvement applied
m
List opportunities or non measurable gains that goes with improvement
n
Give a priority to proposed action; from 1 to 4 based on the effort - benefit chart
o
For each criterion in MURA and MURI column, fill in precent of “O” in the gray cell of “two hand” Coloum fill.
-in “Y” if two-hand work is defined in forms and taught to workers
In the grey cell of “Wait” column fill-in the walk time per cycle
In the grey cell of “Walk” column fill-in the wait time per cycle
p
Fill in the sum of time saved with proposed actions

FIGURE 8.2 (CONTINUED)

Workstation assessment sheet based on eleven key criteria.

should be the goal to achieve when we design an operator workstation. This

reduces the disruption of the operator on the material flow and improves
his or her work conditions as well.” Daniel looked around as some attend-
ees were nodding. “When it comes to workstation, less Mura also means
less Muri,” he concluded with a little smile. “Now, the next waste is Muri.
There are four main work condition strains facing a worker when picking
parts, which are my hit criteria distance to parts, height of part position,
body contact, and body twist. Again, there are four drawings that illus-
trate each situation [Figure 8.6].” Responding to a participant’s question,
Daniel specified that the “distance to part” applied to whatever direction
of the worker’s movement is needed to reach the part: horizontal, vertical,
or other. He also advised that the best way to avoid body twisting was to
66 • Implementing Standardized Work

Posture Operator's posture must be constant from cycle to cycle.

This point is about the change of posture, not a ergonomic assessment of the posture itself.

Operator should be able to easily pick up the same number of parts from cycle to cycle.
Number This concerns mostly small parts (e.g., screws, bolts and nuts) or flimsy parts (e.g., harness)

MURA The position of a part must be constant from cycle to cycle.

Position This is not only the location of the part but also its orientation. In general, the Position varies
if the Posture varies.
The change time for containers of parts feeding a device should below 5% of the Takt Time.
Change This is not an average time per part but the whole time needed to setup a full container or
feeding device when the previous one empties
Distance from operator to the part should be less than 30 cm
Distance This is a very challenging objective, however it drastically helps to improve the work conditions of
the worker, thereby his or her efficiency.
Height of the position of a part should be between 750 mm and 1200 mm
Height This ergonomic window normally depends on the gender of the operator and the weight of the part.
MURI The numbers given here correspond to a male worker and are related to part between 4 and 9 kg.
If necessary, adapt the conditions accordingly.

Body contact No body contact must occur when picking up a part

Body twist No body twist must occur when picking up a part.

Work should be well defined for each of the two hands
Two-hand Workers have two hands that can be used in parallel in their activities. Yet, it is common that operators’
work work descriptions do not provide what each of her/his two hands does during the cycle time. This point is
about the existence or not of such forms, not its observance.
MUDA Walk time within a cycle time
Walk
The walk time must be below 10% of the cycle time.

Wait Wait time within a cycle time

The walk time must be below 10% of the cycle time.

FIGURE 8.3
Explanation of the eleven key workstation assessment sheet criteria.

The 4 invariants (4 Is) of an efficient component supply

Invariant Posture (operator)

Invariant Position
For a given component
Invariant Number

Invariant Cycle time

Each component supply solution should be designed according to the 4-Invariant rule

FIGURE 8.4
The four invariants of an efficient material supply.
 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment • 67

1 3
2 2

1 1

Example 1 Example 2
Bin of ordered parts Bin of unordered parts
Posture: Position:
Operator changes posture to pick up Position of parts changes
variant 1 part and variant 2 part in the two examples

2 4
Empty Empty bin return
Empty
Empty

Full
Full
Bin of screws
Full Full
Full

Number:
Change:
Difficult to pick exactly the same
Empty bin return increases
number of screws from cycle to cycle
part picking time periodically

FIGURE 8.5
The four main invariants linked to part picking: constant posture, constant number, con-
stant position, and constant time.

keep part feeding in front of the operator, then he refocused on the assess-
ment sheet (Figure 8.2). “Well, for Mura and Muri, assessment is done for
each component or tool. When the condition to be satisfied is okay, then
you should fill in an O. If not, write an X. Those conditions are specified
for each criterion in the second sheet you have received [Figure 8.3]. I will
let you read them and get back to me if you need more explanation. The
final score for each criterion here at the workstation level is the percentage
of O.”
Daniel stopped and breathed for a few seconds, glanced at the room
to make sure that everyone was on board, then continued. “Now, when
it comes to Muda, the assessment is done for the whole workstation.
What are we looking for? First, what I would call the ‘usual suspects’
that you all know: wait and walk. There is something else pretty new
that I have added, which is the use of two hands.” A participant inter-
rupted Daniel to ask: “Why is this important? And how do we achieve
it?” Daniel responded, “Look, these are two excellent questions. Please
allow me not to digress in order to make it easier for you to follow. I
68 • Implementing Standardized Work

1 3
Contact

Distance

2 4

Twist

Height

FIGURE 8.6
The four main work condition strains facing a worker when picking parts: distance to
parts, height of part position, body contact, and body twist.

suggest we have a deep dive into the two-hand work issue when I fin-
ish the explanation of the forms. All right?” The participant nodded.
Daniel proceeded:

Well, the conditions that each workstation must satisfy for Muda are, once
again, listed in the support document [Figure 8.3]. One important point is
that the final score for “two hands” is “yes” or “no.” For “wait” and “walk,”
it is the time in seconds: recorded wait time per cycle and recorded walk
time per cycle. When the form is filled out, you may want to assess another
workstation belonging to the same line or the same plant. This is where you
would need the second form [Figure 8.7]. Actually, it is an Excel file,* which
gives a visual assessment not only of each criterion but also of the whole
situation, should it be a line or a plant. There are three colors: green when
it is OK (equal or better than the target), orange when it is lagging a little
bit (up to 10% worse compared to target), and red when it is clearly a failure
(more than 10% below the target). Also, note that each criterion aggregated
at line or plant level is rated with one of the three following symbols: O
* File available on TheOneDayExpert.com.
 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment • 69

Author John B Takt Time (sec)

WORKSTATION EVALUATION SHEET
Date June 2012 60 sec

MURA
Operator Component reach Number of each Component collected Maximum duration periodical
How? Position of Components Distance to Components & Tools
Posture by operator task
30 cm for 100% of
Target 100% Constant Posture 100% Constant Number 100% Constant Position 5% of Takt Time
components

Synthesis 18% X 27% X 0% X 91% ∆ 0% X

What?
% of components OK % of components OK % of components OK % of components OK % of components OK
Stations

Workstation 1 38% R 88% R 38% R 67% R 25% R

Workstation 2 100% G 76% R 40% R 100% G 90% R

Workstation 3 100% G 80% R 60% R 100% G 70% R

Workstation 4 95% O 100% G 70% R 100% G 70% R

Workstation 5 70% R 90% R 67% R 100% G 89% R

Workstation 6 95% O 100% G 70% R 100% G 90% R

Workstation 7 78% R 90% R 11% R 100% G 76% R

Workstation 8 90% R 88% R 25% R 100% G 74% R

Workstation 9 96% O 86% R 70% R 100% G 85% R

Workstation 10 40% R 90% R 30% R 100% G 80% R

Workstation 11 80% R 100% G 70% R 100% G 67% R

FIGURE 8.7
Synthetic Excel spreadsheet form that provides the big picture of a group of workstations
belonging to the same line or to the same plant; the first raw data are from Figure 8.2.
(Continued)

when it is perfectly equal or above the target; Δ when it is less than 10%
below the target; X if it is worse than 10% of the target. Please note that
the first row of this chart (Figure 8.7), referenced as Workstation 1, is filled
out with the final score from the example on the assessment sheet just dis-
cussed [Figure 8.2]. I have added ten other workstation data as examples.
If everything is clear, I now propose that we come back to the question of
two-handed work.

The room acquiesced.

Well, if you remember very well, I told you at the beginning that these
assessment forms were based on the most frequent shortcomings we have
noticed on the shop floor. In most of the plants I have visited, folks tend
to forget that they have two hands. Now, do not get me wrong. I am not
taking a shot at workers; it would not be fair as there is no document that
describes what the left and the right hand should be doing. Think about the
potential added-value time we can harvest if workers used their two hands
efficiently. Let me see; I think I have printed out an example of a form that
70 • Implementing Standardized Work

OVERALL ADHERENCE TO PRINCIPLES

Target 90% G Realized 25% G

MURI MUDA
Body contact while picking
Height of components Twist while picking Components Two-hand Work Walk Wait
Components

100% Constant Position No body contact No body twist 100% Defined & Applied < 10% TT < 10% TT

9% X 9% X 100% O 0% X 0% X 18% X

Application
% of components OK % of components OK % of components OK Walked time / Cycle Wait time / Cycle
(YES / NO)

R 63% R 100% G N R 10 R 15 R

95% O 95% O 100% G N R 18 R 10 R

100% G 92% O 100% G N R 20 R 5 G

97% O 91% O 100% G N R 22 R 6 R

95% O 55% R 100% G N R 32 R 8 R

67% R 100% G 100% G N R 15 R 19 R

89% R 78% R 100% G N R 13 R 10 R

95% O 97% O 100% G N R 14 R 4 G

78% R 90% R 100% G N R 16 R 11 R

90% R 75% R 100% G N R 18 R 10 R

95% O 85% R 100% G N R 20 R 13 R

FIGURE 8.7 (CONTINUED)

Synthetic Excel spreadsheet form that provides the big picture of a group of workstations
belonging to the same line or to the same plant; the first raw data are from Figure 8.2.

shows how the operator’s work can be described for both hands. Here we
go. This document is called the Operator Process Chart [Figure 8.8]. The
upper part shows the layout of the workstation, and right after that, below,
are the work instructions for the left hand with estimated time on the left
and the work instructions for the right hand with estimated time on the
right. Handwritten on the bottom right is a quick estimate of potential
waste. It includes any hand wait time and hold time. Why do we consider
hold time as potential waste? Well, this is because it is not a value-adding
task; in effect, often a simple jig or clamping system can be implemented
to free the hand. Even if the operator is 100% busy (no wait time, no walk
time), this Operator Process Chart shows that his or her productivity can
still be improved by 45%. To be frank with you, none of our plants has such
a document so far. However, we think that this is an important reservoir of
productivity that we should pursue going forward.

Daniel paused a few seconds and explained that was all he had to share.
There were no questions. Thomas was absent, so Daniel asked Steve if he
would like to summarize the session. Steve laid down a few bullet sum-
mary points on a chart (Figure 8.9). After the summary, Daniel proposed a
 Focused Tachinbo: Workstation Assessment • 71

Operator Process Chart

Part number: XYKM-92 Page 1/1
Product: Platform Area / Process: Left side By: John B. Date: June, 2012

Left Side
member Tube 2

Tube 1 Nut 2
Nut 1
Assembly Ring 2
area
Ring 1

Operator

Left hand Time (sec) Time (sec) Right hand

Get Tube 1 1,00 1,00 Get Tube 2
Place Tube 1 1,30 1,30 Place Tube 2
1,00 Get Left Side member
Wait 2,30 1,30 Place Left Side member
1,00 Get Ring 1
1,30 Place Ring 1
1,00 Get Nut 1
1,30 Place Nut 1
4,00 Run Nut 1
1,00 Get Ring 2
1,30 Place Ring 2
1,00 Get Nut 2
1,30 Place Nut 2
Hold Left Side member 17,20 4,00 Run Nut 2
Dispose of finished good 2,00 2,00 Wait
Total 23,80 23,80

Cycle time 23,80 Total wait time: 4,30

Piece /Cycle 1 Total Hold time: 17,20
Time per piece 23,8 Total potential waste: 45%

FIGURE 8.8
Two-hand Operator Process Chart. This operator has no walk or wait time; however,
there is a 45% potential for improvement by using both hands in added-value tasks.

Key Points about Workstation Assessment

• Forms are used to support Tachinbo.
• Forms are based on most common weaknesses.
• Forms are very visual (green, orange, red), and assessment is based on physically measurable data.
• Criteria belong to the three types of waste: Mura, Muri, and Muda.
• Forms lead the user step by step in a structured way to the right results.
• Use of two hands can drastically increase operator’s productivity.
• Acid test for parts supply: “Close your eyes and try to pick them up.”

FIGURE 8.9
Main learning points on workstation assessment sheets.
72 • Implementing Standardized Work

lunch break and preview of the rest of the training day. “When you return
from lunch, we will move to the shop floor, where you will be able to apply
today’s learning on real cases. Please enjoy your food, and as we say here
in France, ‘Bon appétit!’”

The acid test is that you need to be able to close your eyes and pick
up exactly the part you need, when you need it. In other words, parts
supply is deemed optimized when a blind person can perform the
picking.

Think about the potential added-value time we can harvest if work-

ers use their two hands efficiently.
9
Shop Floor Application and Takeaway

Thomas returned to the room when the group was preparing for the shop
floor part of the training. As expected, the meeting with the labor union
had not been a cakewalk. As labor union representatives were still strug-
gling to adapt to the so-called new doctrine, they had to digest a proposal
from senior management packaged in a document called “Competitiveness
Plant Power 5,” which was comprised of a set of actions whose implementa-
tion was believed to move the plant to a healthy 5% operating income. This
give-and-take competitiveness plan included commitment from the man-
agement side to source new products from the plant, along with investment
in new machines to support a capacity increase. This was meant to ensure
plant sustainability and consequently job viability for the coming years.
In return, the management demanded some renouncements, including a
salary freeze and an extension of the current 35-hour working week to a
39-hour working week. Under the new organization, each worker would
have to work four extra hours per week with no additional compensation.
When Thomas first discussed the plan, it appeared to be an “aha
moment” for a labor union whose subject of discussion thus far had
merely been to negotiate the right salary raise with the management. It
was no more about “How much will my raise be?” but “Will I be able to
keep my job?” Years of distrustful relations with management had left the
labor union mostly defiant to all the signs of the degradation of the plant
situation, despite repeated warnings from the management. The denial
was no longer possible, and the labor union had to face the situation. An
exceptional situation requires support from the base. Thomas had there-
fore proposed to have every associate weigh in on his proposal. The main
goal of the meeting he just concluded with the labor union was mostly to
agree on the best way to organize the polling that will support or dismiss
the competitiveness plan. An agreement was found. Therefore, Thomas

73
74 • Implementing Standardized Work

Safety gloves Safety helmet

Safety glasses

Safety shoes Tachinbo

circle

FIGURE 9.1
Personal protection equipment (PPE) required for Tachinbo.

was in a joyful mood when he returned to the training room to carry on

with the Standardized Work training.
Daniel asked the group to become prepared for the shop floor. “As we
will be standing for long periods,” he said, “please make sure that you’re
equipped with the right safety equipment; I mean safety shoes, earplugs,
glasses, safety vest [Figure 9.1]. Also, remember that the shop floor is not a
harmless place; therefore, be careful, look out for yourself and for your col-
leagues. Again, we will be standing for long hours on the shop floor. You will
be focused on your observation and may also become tired. Do not loosen
your attention to safety matters.” Daniel also asked the plant safety manager
to complete his general instructions with specific ones. He then explained
that for any observation on the shop floor to be productive, everyone needed
to be well equipped with required safety equipment and necessary materials
(paper pad, stopwatch, camera, camcorder). Everyone needed to have a well-
defined role and position as well. He concluded: “Please avoid being errant
tourists on the shop floor; it is not only unproductive but also dangerous.”

Please avoid being errant tourists on the shop floor; it is not only
unproductive but also dangerous.

The group decided to go back to the same assembly machines they used
the day before when writing the Standardized Work forms. The plant has
ten such machines. They have already written the Standardized Work
 Shop Floor Application and Takeaway • 75

Assembly Machine flow and Layout

Stage 2: Stage 3:
Preassembly Final Assembly

Tachinbo
circle
Stage 4:
Preparation

Quality
Stage 1:

Check

Trolley
(Cylinder supply) Tachinbo
circle

Tachinbo Auto transfer or supply

Cartridge circle
(gum band supply) Manual transfer or supply

FIGURE 9.2
Layout of the machine with Tachinbo circles for observation.

forms for two of them. The group first went on the shop floor to shoot
videos and pictures and to collect necessary information regarding the
eight remaining machines and to write quick-and-dirty Standardized
Work documents for these machines. They performed black book shar-
ing, which led to a few modifications in the layout, and also noted some
best practices to be shared between workers. They actually noticed that
the machines* used the day before had the best layout. Also, they noticed
that the operator was the best performer. “Did Steve choose this machine
because he knew that?” Daniel asked himself. As a result, most of the
changes were from the first machine to the other ones.
After the black book sharing, the group moved to the Tachinbo phase.
Just like the day before, because of its size, the group was split into sev-
eral teams assigned to several machines. They decided to focus on three
machines to have everyone busy. Each team picked a video recorder,
two people in charge of the workstation assessment forms (Figure  8.2,
Figure  8.7), and two other people doing free observation to prepare for
free generation of ideas. To dispatch its members, each team drew three
Tachinbo circles (Figure  7.5, Figure  9.2). As underscored previously by
Daniel, everyone had the requested equipment, a clear mission, and a well-
defined location marked on the floor.
* Details are given in the previous book of this series: Implementing Standardized Work: Writing
Standardized Work Forms.
76 • Implementing Standardized Work

Just-Do-It Actions to Be Implemented

• Reduce auto time of the machine by 6 seconds (this has been envisaged before but could not be
performed because worker was too rushed).
• Compact the layout.
• Change job step sequence to reduce motion and walk (to be marked on the shop floor).
• Use smaller and more ergonomic equipment (height, distance, body twist) to supply cylinder.
   Expected savings: 12% more capacity.

FIGURE 9.3
List of just-do-it actions with a total expected gain of 12% additional capacity.

The Tachinbo lasted 2 hours. Daniel underlined that this was short-
ened for obvious reasons: “This is the lengthiest one we could do in
this training. If you are doing Tachinbo alone, I would advise you to
go as long as at least half a shift.” As taught by Daniel, each team listed
its proposals, made an estimate of benefits, shared and explained with
videos, prioritized, then wrote the Standardized Work Improvement
Story document. They used cardboard and people to perform mock-
ups. The whole group then focused on a few just-do-it actions that
they decided to perform by the end of the day (Figure 9.3). Actually,
when the group looked at the Standardized Work chart, they under-
stood quickly that something needed to be done to reduce the work-
er’s motion. By focusing on the worker’s motion, they could reduce
his or her walk time, but when they looked at the Standardized Work
combination chart, they noticed that the critical path was mostly con-
strained by the machine (Figure 9.4). This meant that any reduction of
walk time (Figure 9.5) would be directly converted into wait time. Of
course, this would still be a gain in terms of ergonomics but would not
be visible enough to everyone in the plant, let alone managers, whether
local or regional.
At this moment, John, the engineering manager, remembered that a
month or so ago they noticed that they could speed up the machine and
tested it but had to revert because the operator had only 3 seconds to
absorb variability in the step 3 end. This did not appear to be enough
(Figure 9.4). With the new job sequence, the worker would have 8 sec-
onds at the end of step 3 and 12 seconds at the end of step 6 to synchro-
nize with machine operation. That would be enough to absorb worker
variability.
 Home Appliances Inc.
STANDARDIZED WORK COMBINATION TABLE

TAKT TIME: 68 COMMENTS

TITRE: Assembly Mach BY : Volume: 1000 Parts/day
Cycle Time Takt Time
1 DATE: June, 2012
TIME TIME GRAPH (seconds)
N° Major steps 2
MANU AUTO WAIT WALK 5 10 3 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
1 Unload finished part and start mach. 2 25 Steage 3
3 Module
2 Check finished part 7 6
1
3 Pick up the cylinder 2 3 5
3 4
4 Load cylinder and start mach. 2 29 Stage 3
3
Prepare the cylinder 3 Module
5
3
6 Fix plastic part 4
1
7 Flip the gum band 3 10
2
16

TOTAL 23 54 19 SYMBOLES:- MANUAL: AUTO: WALKING: WAIT:

FIGURE 9.4
Before and after Standardized Work combination table: Cycle time improved by 12%. (Continued)
Shop Floor Application and Takeaway • 77
 Home Appliances Inc.
STANDARDIZED WORK COMBINATION TABLE

TAKT TIME: 68 COMMENTS

TITRE: Assembly Mach BY : Volume: 1000 Parts/day
Cycle Time Takt Time
DATE: June, 2012
TIME TIME GRAPH (seconds)
N° Major steps
MANU AUTO WAIT WALK 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
1 Unload finished part and start mach. 1 24
Stage 3
2
2 Check finished part 9 Module
1
3 Pick up the cylinder 3 8
1
4 Load cylinder and start mach. 2 24
78 • Implementing Standardized Work

Stage 3
2
Module
5 Fix plastic part 4
1
6 Check finished part 3 12
2

TOTAL 22 48 20 9 SYMBOLES:- MANUAL: AUTO: WALKING: WAIT:

FIGURE 9.4 (CONTINUED)

Before and after Standardized Work combination table: Cycle time improved by 12%.
 Shop Floor Application and Takeaway • 79

Before
Home Appliances Inc. Standardized Work Chart File name
Operations From: Ext
Product: Home appliance Area / Process: Assemby Mach Date: June, 2012
to: Ext.
Standard WIP

Takt Time
Quality
Stage 2: Stage 3: checks

68 s Preassembly Final Assembly Safety

6 1 4 Tip
Cycle Motion
Time
With parts
Stage 1: Preparation

58 s Stage 4: Without parts

7 Quality
Production
2 Check Name:
Number of
Standard date:
WIP
IE
Name:
5 3
3
date:
Cylinder trolley
Quality
nom:

date:

After
Home Appliances Inc. Standardized Work Chart )LOHQDPH
Operations From: Ext Date: June, 2012
Product: Home appliance Area / Process: Assemby Mach
to: Ext.
Standard WIP
Takt Time
Quality
checks
Stage 2: Stage 3:
F
68 s Preassembly Final Assembly Safety

5 1 4 Cylinder Tip
Cycle feeder
Time Motion
3 With parts
Stage 1: Preparation

58 s Stage 4: Without parts

6 Quality
Production
2 Check Name:
Number of
Standard date:
WIP
IE
Name:

3
date:

Quality
nom:

date:

FIGURE 9.5
Before and after Standardized Work chart: more compact, less back and forth, walk
reduced by 48%.
80 • Implementing Standardized Work

The group also noticed that for the new layout to be implemented,
they needed to move from a big cylinder trolley to a smaller and more
ergonomic cylinder feeder, which could be placed close to the machine,
thereby preventing the operator from handling the cylinder twice. This
allowed the number of job steps to be reduced from seven to six, and the
operator could pick up the cylinder at the perfect height and distance and
with no body twist. Very encouraged by its success, the group decided to
test the new method with an operator to obtain a sense of what they called
the “customer” feedback.
A workstation was quickly laid out according to the new Standardized
Work chart (Figure 9.5). They also had the new setup checked and vali-
dated by the plant safety manager to make sure that they were not putting
the worker at risk. Thereafter, the team leader of this assembly area, who
had been part of the training from day one, was assigned to explain the
new method to the worker, using Standardized Work forms. That was the
best document they had available at this stage of the Standardized Work
implementation.* To make it easier for a worker to adapt to the new job
sequence, the group decided to mark it on the shop floor (Figures 9.6–9.8).
After several runs, the worker feedback was excellent, to the point that
the worker did not want the group to return to the old method. Finally,
the setup that was initially designed for the test was kept after the safety
manager gave it a green light.
According to the operator, the work was much easier the new way. He
could feel the improvement in the work conditions. It is no surprise that
he feels the change, commented Thomas: “We have halved his walking
distance!” De facto after careful measurement, the group estimated that
they had reduced the worker’s walk distance by 48%. As Thomas com-
mented: “This is a perfect example to start with. Everybody has won. It’s a
win for the worker, who will be happy with the improved work conditions.
It’s a win for the plant, which will enjoy increased capacity. It’s a win for
us because we have obtained the perfect quick win we were looking for to
motivate the team!”
It was getting late, and it was time to release the group. Thomas con-
vened all participants for a wrap-up in the training room. While walking
back to the training room, Thomas reflected on the day and thought that
* Standardized Work forms are not destined for training. Specific documents should be used to this
end. This point is addressed in the next book of the series.
 Shop Floor Application and Takeaway • 81

FIGURE 9.6
Marking the job steps on the shop floor can ease early application of Standardized Work.

it had been a positive one overall. Referring to a quotation* that Daniel

had shared with them, he mumbled: “Removing the mountain is still a
long shot, but I’ve moved two small stones today: the successful meeting
with the labor union and the positive results of today’s Standardized Work
training session.”

Process Analysis chart of the Assembly Workstation

80

70

60 Takt time (= 68’’)

50 Average cycle time (from 64’’ to 55’’)

40
Target cycle time (from 58’’ to 51’’)

30 Material change for cylinder and gum

band (= 2’’ per part)
20
Cycle time range beyond
10 target cycle time (form 15’’ to 12’’)

0
Before After

FIGURE 9.7
Before and after process analysis chart: Capacity increased, and thanks to quick training
and marks on the shop floor, variability was slightly reduced despite introduction of a
new method.

* “The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones” (William Faulkner).
82 • Implementing Standardized Work

Main Savings Scorecard

Saving Comments
-48% walk
(2.7 km less/worker) Less walk and strain also improves worker’s
Ergonomics
Cylinder supply improved efficiency – worker is less tired
(height, distance, body twist)

1 Major Key Safety Point

Safety Actions: training, communication (display)
addressed

Plant has 10 similar machines, 2 options:

12% capacity increase per -Produce same capacity with 5 fewer operators*
(saving = $175 k**)
Productivity machine
(saving: $175 k or $500 k) -Increase volume as part of competitiveness plan,
therefore one fewer machine purchased
(saving = $ 500k***)

*Plant needs 5 operators for each job position. For more details of the calculation, please refer to
the first book of the series: Implementing Standardized Work: Measuring Operators’ Performance.
**Annual cost per operator is $35 K.
*** Cost of a machine.

FIGURE 9.8
Main saving scorecard: Quick improvements help motivate the team.

Thomas thanked Daniel for his support and then continued: “I will
not come back to all the steps of what you have done today. It’s time
to focus on the results.” Thomas commented the changes on the pro-
cess analysis chart (Figure 9.6) succinctly, and then displayed the saving
scorecard that Steve had drafted on a flip chart (Figure 9.7). He said that
the improvements were “positively surprising,” then congratulated the
team on their achievement and added that their “hard work has been
rewarded.” He also made a point of why this result was a win for every-
one and concluded: “You have done a fantastic job this week, which has
led to the very encouraging results in front of us. I know that you are all
tired; I will let you go home now to enjoy a well-deserved rest. Oh! By
the way, I have asked my assistant to print out small cards including all
the steps of the process improvement for you. They are here [Figure 9.9].
Please help yourself when you leave the room.” I will see you tomorrow.
Drive safely!”
  • 83

1-Black Books sharing

Observation:
Different operators producing the same product on the same
machine are observed (see mapping in the first book).
Sharing:
The whole team shares and compares different workers’
methods (use of data collection sheet, STW forms, videos).
Implementation:
A list of actions are issued and implemented right away, as
most actions are just-do-its.
Result: common standard for all

2-Tachinbo
Intensive observation:
The whole team is split in several groups:
• Some groups use a workstation assessment sheet
(take videos and pictures)
• Some groups make free observations
(take videos and pictures)

Sharing:
Each group:
• issues a list of actions with estimated benefits
(use mock-ups)
• shares its proposals with the whole team
(use videos to ease understanding)

3-Prioritization
Assignment:
The whole team gives priorities to actions
(from 1 to 4 based prioritization chart –effort v. benefit).

Action plan:
The whole team agrees on an action plan. A responsible person
and completion date are assigned to actions with priority below
3. Priority 4 actions are discarded.
(Use STW Improvement Story forms to communicate)

4-Execution
Focus on quick wins:
All actions classified as priority 1 and some priority 2 are
implemented the same day on one machine.

Checks:
Verify that implementation produces expected results
(safety, quality and cost).
For learning purposes, gaps between estimates (Tachinbo
phase) actual results explained.

Communicate and celebrate:

Use Standardized Work Improvement Story to communicate
Celebrate results to motivate the squad.

5-Acting
Updating STW:
Standardized Work forms are updated to reflect improvements.

Generalization:
Improvements are extended to similar processes
(in the same plant or elsewhere).

FIGURE 9.9
Main steps of process improvement in Standardized Work implementation.
About the Author
Alain Patchong is the assembly director at Faurecia Automotive Seating,
France. He also holds the title of master expert in assembly processes.
He was previously the industrial engineering manager for Europe, the
Middle East, and Africa at Goodyear in Luxembourg. In this position,
he developed training materials and led a successful initiative for the
deployment of Standardized Work in several Goodyear plants. Before
joining Goodyear, he worked with PSA Peugeot Citroën for 12 years,
where he developed and implemented methods for manufacturing
systems engineering and production line improvement. He also led
Lean implementations within PSA weld factories. He teaches at École
Centrale Paris and École Supérieure d’Electricité, two French engineer-
ing schools. He was a finalist of the INFORMS’ (Institute for Operations
Research and Management Science) Edelman Competition in 2002 and
a visiting scholar at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 2004.
He is the author of several articles published in renowned journals. His
work has been used in engineering and business school courses around
the world.

85
Lean Methods & Implementation

The
One-Day
Exper t
Series
PROCESS
IMPROVEMENT

This book, the third in a series dedicated to Standardized Work, focuses on process
improvement. Implementing Standardized Work: Process Improvement begins
by explaining why standardization and process improvement are two sides of the
same coin—both needing each other to achieve true sustainability.

Describing how to use Standardized Work forms to identify easy opportunities for
process improvement, the book includes simple tools and forms that readers can
use to achieve quick improvements to boost morale and sustain motivation during
the work ahead. Maintaining a focus on process improvement, it covers essential
knowledge using a compelling story format.

Following in the tradition of other books in The One-Day Expert series, this book
tells the story of Thomas, a young, high-potential plant manager in an industrial
group. In this installment, Thomas opens a new front line in his quest to turn
around the plant’s inefficiency. He tries a new type of relationship with the labor
union based on mutual trust and constructive partnership, while negotiating a
competitiveness plan. Readers will also see how he continues to push for the
implementation of Standardized Work.

Covering the essential methods and tools of process improvement in a manner

that is easy to understand, this book can help you become familiar with the key
concepts of Standardized Work and process improvement in just one day. That
means you can read the book and immediately start implementing improvements
that produce quick wins. The book’s clear examples and illustrations will guide you
through proper application of the techniques discussed.

K16002