Why standards are stupid? Kaizen workshops, TWI, 6Sigma, Problem Solving tools… We are overwhelmed by standards we used to learn during our career. Today I’m going to explain why standards are stupid and following them could be dangerous!
The Classroom Training
Standards are wonderful things: they help us to find a repeatable way to obtain the desired results. This is what we learn this during the first contact we have with them: we need to stick to the methods, no changes allowed, mandatory forms to be used, and so on. During the class training, we just become aware about the new method, but we are not still able to use it in the proper way, that’s why our training path needs to proceed in some after-training activities. After the theory we are then forced to do our first “project”, and here problems starts to appear.
The practice
Now we are in the evaluation phase: as trainees, we need to deliver our first project in order to prove we understood the method and we are able to manage the process we just learned. This step is necessary, a person is not able to really understand until he/she is really practicing what was observed in the classroom. This is a critical moment, for different reasons:
- Trainees are forced to do this, in a given timeframe.
- Projects are usually fake.
- No customisation allowed.
I will analyse these reasons, and what changes we could bring in our learning process to be more effective.
The “fight”
These three reasons above are strongly linked together, and the chain of events starts from the first topic: the hurry.
The biggest enemy of the learning curve is the urgency. We expect our learners to show, as fast as possible, that they learned the new method and that we could “use” them in action to solve problems or to implement something new. What is missing in this phase is a real coaching timeframe where the trainer could evaluate how the learner is thinking, behaving and acting during the application of the standard. The typical hurry of our business forced us to define the fastest solution to evaluate somebody: show me you followed the standard, and you will get your certification!
Typical reaction to this hurry will result in learners faking the projects, using some old problems already solved, or creating some simulation where the only goal will be to show they followed the standard.
As for business KPI (check this article: https://leancommunity.org/everybody-lies management-by-objectives/) where nobody wants to show red numbers, the main goal will be just to get our certification, not to really master the new methodology. Both trainers and trainee are under pressure to succeed in their task (teach and learn), and thus the goal is close the first project as fast as possible.
The last point is the consequence of the first two: to get to a quick results, the trainer will just evaluate is the learner followed 100% the method. This approach is somehow rough, as there is no time to investigate deeper about the mental process followed by the leaner, and the easiest way to assign an evaluation is: let’s check if standard was strictly followed on paper.
This last point is, in my opinion, the most dangerous of all. Every person, process, company and business is different: the basic idea that a standard process could work 1:1 in every situation is wrong. It is fundamental for learners that they can learn how to apply correctly the new information in their own world; at the same time, it should be a must for the trainers to be sure the standard was not used as a “copy&paste” project.
Shu-ha-ri
There is concept in martial arts, called Shuhari. It cannot be translated easily, but there we could try to get the meaning:
shu: obey, follow the rule
ha: detach, distance, bend the rule
ri: leave, separation, break the rule
In a learning context, these three steps are part of the path a learner will walk to get to a new knowledge. In the first phase, Shu, the students will follow the theory (or the standard) as it was given to them, without thinking about any variation. Later on, in the ha phase, learner will start to practice and understand what is behind the method, and the implication of using the new standard. Last step, ri, is the phase where learner master the new standard and learn on their own, getting to a point that they can change the standard!
In Lean philosophy, it is often said that when a standard is old, that means there is no improvement; at the same time, continuous improvement is the process of challenging standards to improve them!
A case study: the coaching phase
So how we can really improve our relation with standards? Coaching (and kata, the routine of doing something continuously during the time), is the best answer. We should be able to teach new standards and methods in a way that learners could really build internal awareness about the best way to use them and eventually to change them (break the rule!). Time is the key word: it is not important how fast we could certify our trainees, but how deeply they can go in understanding what they are doing.
If we analyse the application of TWI for example, we could observe some key points that needs our attention:
- it is a method from 1940s
- it was developed in a manufacturing world that was completely different from today’s
- it needs discipline and qualification rules
In the standard training, TWI is taught putting lot of emphasis on discipline, rules, and nothing can be changed due to the fact method worked for more than 70 years.
But what if we apply the rules born for intensive manual job in a manufacturing shop floor today? Simply, the method will not work or will be less effective. Does it means that TWI is useless? Absolutely not!
TWI itself is a robust standard to improve our relationship and effectiveness in our business but, after learning the rule, we need to be smart enough to bend and break the rule! When I went through my certification process, I learned how to apply the standard without any customization. When I tried to teach the method out of the classroom, in the shop floor, it was clear that there was a need of tailor-made adjustments! I saw many facilities trying to apply it 1:1 with the theory, and complaining it was a waste of time and not effective.
My experience as a trainer in implementing such a rigid standard is that every customer-facility is different:
- Understand the real need before applying the standard is a key step to create the best condition.
- Keep coaching your learners – avoid to just deliver the theory class and evaluate your trainees after a while.
- Give your team the chance to propose changes, modifications, improvements in the method they are applying; this will give them the opportunity to experiment and learn deeply.
So, are standards stupid?
No, they are not. Standards are there to help us to be repeatable and effective, and to assure our output is stable. But standards have no brain, so they can be stupid in the sense that they are not self-applicable! Every time a standard is applied, there is a person with a brain behind it! And that brain should be the focus of our development; people should be developed together with the standard with are applying, not the opposite. Forcing the implementation of a standard, hoping that our team will grow just because we have a new method to use, will result in a big waste of time.
References:
Andrea Manti is CBDO at Lean Community. He has over 15 years of experience in Lean Management. He is an expert in Lean and Quality Management and has held positions working as a Process Engineer, Customer Quality representative, Quality System Manager (IATF standard), and Continuous Improvement Senior Manager. During his career, Andrea has led the implementation of several Lean/6Sigma projects, TPM workshops, and TWI activities. He is also an expert in the World Class Manufacturing (WCM) program
