Flip My Switch: Standard Work or Soul Crushing Exactness

In Lean there is a concept known as “standard work”. A game around standard work is to define the elements of work to a point that they are standardized and predictable. The theory goes that the highest evolution of management is to understand exactly how something is made will allow us to make a whole lot of it cheaply and with no risk.

At that point you can write a really tight job description and get the absolute best people for the job.

So, we’ve been trying to do this in software for years. Chasing the grail of standard work. First, waterfall ignored it. RUP tried to institutionalize it. Scrum even took a stab at it. Kanban has dangerous rhetoric around it.

So, let’s take a look at standard work.

Below is a quick HD video about standard work, it will fully train you in your new position at Modus Cooperandi.

Standard work tends to be this dull.

For knowledge work, the more systems we create that are this dull, the more we detract from the creation elements of work. For example, one of the repetitive tasks I have to do is accounting. It’s pretty much digging through one pile of numbers and moving them into some other system. It bores me to death and does not, in any way, get me excited to create new, interesting things the rest of the day.

I’ve worked for companies that have gone through ugly ISO 900x processes that have left people with forms to complete to fill out more forms. Very standard work, very soul crushing.

I’ve seen teams whose stand-up meetings have become standard work, in this sense. They show up, mumble perfunctory nothings about what they did and what they are going to do. No one listens to them, they don’t listen to anyone else.

Agile tries to build itself constructive rituals – but they can become staid. Lean tries to help understand variation – but the drive for this can become over standardization.

The goal is to produce value. Producing value is fun. Stand up meetings without a soul begin a day without a soul. Processes that reduce work to ultra-defined chunks, reduce creativity to ultra-defined chunks.

When we are in knowledge work, and the goal is creating new knowledge and artifacts, reducing creativity is reducing profit potential and sustainability.

Beware as you head forward that your process does not kill your creativity – whatever process you choose.

Comments

[David]

What you have outlined above is a common misconception of standard work, something that was lost in translation from Japanese to English a long time ago. Standard work in its ideal sense is only half of what you describe above. To engage employees it is imperative that they understand that the first step to standard work is to define the task explicitly, which you have done. The second step is to improve the work using the standard steps you have created. Standard work is not the end all be all "fixed" work, in fact it provides the framework for which you can change the work in a controlled fashion.

Coming from the perspective of manufacturing, we would define the assembly steps similar to the lightswitch demonstration above, and then tweak elements(hand position, switch design, audible confirmation) until we could improve the work and set the new standard work. The standard work became the set point for improvements, a training tool for new workers, and baseline for discussing operations without employee or managerial bias, assuming you both agree on the standard work method.

Without standard work we probably wouldn't have motion sensing lights that completely eliminate the need to train a worker how to turn them on and off.

Too often standard work becomes exactly what you describe above, a rigid, lifeless, pursuit of process mapping without regard for improvement. Standard work should provoke questions, it should challenge a team to decide the "best" way to accomplish a task, it should not be wallpaper, and it should not be the end of your project, it is the start.

[Jim Benson]

@David, I totally agree. The point of understanding standard work is to find what processes are formally or informally standardized. Then make determinations for improvement.

Improvement here implies that standard work isn't fixed.

But the perversion I see is most often is the rigid, lifeless automaton goal.

[Jeff Smith]

Surely in standard work, we set the basis for being done... we name agreements we have made with each other; but it is a minimum standard, not so much seeking out simple conformity - but a goal that is not realized without focus and collaboration.

That said, having a certain level of code coverage is just a soul-less number... that is just conformity. We always must reach. Seeking also to exceed - to produce a compelling customer experience, an elegant improvement, a new idea yielding advantage... to produce something memorable - something to be proud of... we must also have this.

The source of enthusiasm for our work, the willingness to take risks, and the eye for excellence - surely are the domain of leadership. Maybe we have some individuals that help by shining a light when times are challenging. Killing the spirit of the team is rarely in the process - but in how we engage and encourage each other. The process gets better almost naturally if we do this part right. The self-actualization part - the connection with the group, with something meaningful and bigger than ourselves... I don't think processes can give us these. Nor can simply managing to the task...

Standard work is just a tool - the failing is rarely in the tool. Ours should not be simply a mechanical or technical venture - it should be a human adventure also; It may be hard to provide for the already downtrodden... but giving the work some measure of challenge and excitement again has to be the path forward.

[Jeff Smith]

Surely also, if we ever find ourselves feeling a little too much like mere cattle, it is past time to stand up - burst forth with a loud "Moo!" - and get a conversation started. Choose the safe word of your choice :-)