Business Management / Standardized Work

MARTIN • BELL • MARTIN

T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

Field Guide
“I do not think I have seen anyone take a dry subject like this and make it so fun, engaging,
and interactive. The Standardized Work Field Guide kept my inner five-year-old child
entertained and wanting to turn each page. It is clearly written and explained in language
that mere mortals can understand. I learned a number of tips about standard work that I

T H E
had not understood before. This is now my go-to book on standardized work.”
—Joseph Swartz, administrative director, business transformation, Franciscan Alliance, Inc.

S TA N D A R D I Z E D
“This guide walks you through the development of your standardized work. I encourage you
to take it to the gemba and use its templates and tables to document your processes as they
exist today. It is through its lessons, exercises, and repetitive use that you will gain experi-
ence and confidence to develop your documentation and reduce variation to create a
better product.”

—Brian W. Hudson, senior advisor, Lean Six Sigma Purdue Healthcare Advisors

W O R K
This field guide can be used directly on the gemba (work area) for implementing
and documenting standardized work. It promotes the "future state" of standard-

T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

F I E L D
ized work along with crucial step-by-step techniques and explanations not found

Field Guide
in other publications. The authors furnish many real examples of work problems
that cause Lean practitioners difficulty with documentation, along with accurate

G U I D E
solutions to those problems. The many illustrations and graphics focus on prac-
tice rather than theory. Readers learn that standardized work is not simply a tool
for documentation but a method for reducing variation and providing continuous
improvement through kaizen.

Timothy D. Martin • Jeffrey T. Bell • Scott A. Martin

K27283
ISBN-13: 978-1-4987-5201-5
90000

9 781498 752015
T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

Field Guide
T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

Field Guide
Timothy D. Martin • Jeffrey T. Bell • Scott A. Martin

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
© 2017 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: 20160113

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-1-4987-5203-9 (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, transmitted, 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

Foreword........................................................................................................... vii
Preface................................................................................................................ ix
Acknowledgments.......................................................................................... xiii
1 How to Use This Field Guide.............................................................. 1
Introduction......................................................................................................... 1
2 Layout Sketch: Where It All Begins.................................................... 7
Introduction......................................................................................................... 7
Basic Layout Sketch Rules................................................................................... 9
Some Problems Are More Complicated............................................................11
Food for Thought...............................................................................................16
3 Questions for Layout Sketch Review................................................ 19
Introduction........................................................................................................19
Answers for Layout Sketch Questions.............................................................. 27
4 Standardized Work Chart: Building on an Idea............................... 33
Introduction....................................................................................................... 33
SWC................................................................................................................... 34
TT and Desired Cycle Time.............................................................................. 36
Stopwatches....................................................................................................... 37
Some Tips on Choosing Start/Stop Points....................................................... 38
Simple Stopwatch Method................................................................................ 40
Memory Stopwatch Method #1......................................................................... 42
Variation............................................................................................................ 46
Memory Stopwatch Method #2......................................................................... 48
Summary of the Three Stopwatch Methods.................................................... 53
Food for Thought.............................................................................................. 55
Some Other Information on the SWC.............................................................. 56
5 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review.............................. 59
Introduction....................................................................................................... 59
Answers for SWC Questions............................................................................. 68

v
vi  ◾ Contents

6 Work Combination Table: Where Time and (Work) Space Collide.... 79

Introduction....................................................................................................... 79
How-To: WCT.................................................................................................... 82
Meanwhile, Here in the Work (Real) World.................................................... 91
Real-World Problem: OCT > TT................................................................... 91
Real-World Problem: OCT < TT (and Forced Wait at End of Work Cycle)...... 93
Real-World Problem: Forced Wait during Work Cycle................................. 93
Real-World Problem: Showing Work Elements with No Walk between
Them.............................................................................................................. 94
A Dose of Reality: Some Problems Are Much More Serious........................... 95
Real-World Problem: Work Sequence Does Not Match Geographic
Sequence....................................................................................................... 96
Real-World Problem: Worker Returns to Same Location during Cycle........ 96
Real-World Problem: Parallel Machines Due to Excessive Machine
Cycle Times #1.............................................................................................. 98
Some Problems Seem Impossible to Resolve................................................... 98
Real-Life Example: Parallel Machines Due to Excessive Machine Cycle
Times #2........................................................................................................ 99
Do Not Get Hung Up: Some Rules Are More Like Guidelines......................102
Sometimes, We Outsmart Ourselves...............................................................103
Some Food for Thought...................................................................................105
Watch Your Step: Waste Is Everywhere......................................................... 106
Real-Life Example: Changing the Unit of Flow during the Worker Cycle.......107
Wrap-Up...........................................................................................................109
7 Questions for Work Combination Table Review..............................113
Introduction......................................................................................................113
Answers for WCT Review............................................................................... 120
8 Where Do We Go from Here?...........................................................131
Introduction......................................................................................................131
Man–Machine Utilization Graph..................................................................... 134
Task Summary Sheet........................................................................................137
9 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review......................................145
Introduction......................................................................................................145
Answers for Miscellaneous Tools Questions................................................... 151
Reference................................................................................................157
.
About the Authors......................................................................................... 165
Foreword

The real power of Lean occurs when a specialized technique that is typically
practiced by a highly technical person such as an industrial engineer is taught
and understood and used by an everyday person. I love what Tim and Jeff have
created! They have brought standardized work into the realm of understanding
of anyone. I do not think that I have seen anyone take a dry subject like this
and make it so fun, engaging, and interactive. It kept my inner five-year-old child
entertained and wanting to turn each page. It is clearly written and explained in
language that mere mortals can understand. The drawings help make the mate-
rial interesting and fun. The fun and interactive nature of the book helped to
embed the learning more deeply. The exercises and the examples are practical
and represent real-life situations. I learned a number of tips about standard work
that I had not understood before. This is now my go-to book on standardized
work.

Joseph E. Swartz
Administrative director, business transformation
Franciscan Alliance, Inc.

In my travels, the concept of standardized work is a topic that people think

they fully understand and often downplay its importance or application in the
workplace. The variety of scenarios where work is done is broad and highlights
the need to document the work so that it can be done consistently by all work-
ers. As a result, people struggle with documenting the best way to do a process
and do not implement standardized work as they should. This results in incon-
sistent output for organizations impacting quality and the effectiveness of their
processes.
With this book, I am reminded of the quote that is credited to Taiichi Ohno:
“Without standards there can be no kaizen.” Standardized work is intended to
document and improve the work as it applies in all settings, from production to
service industries including high- and low-volume/high-mix applications. It is the
creation of standardized work that allows for the work to happen with less varia-
tion and consistent output.

vii
viii  ◾ Foreword

I first met Tim Martin and Jeff Bell about 10 years ago through a Lean col-
laborative in our region: the Wabash Valley Lean Network. At the time, they
were both working in the automotive industry at Delphi Corporation, previously
a subsidiary of General Motors. In their roles, they were part of the continuous
improvement group working on customer improvement programs, equipment
design, and Lean flow cells.
Since that time, I have gotten to know them well and learned a tremendous
amount that has shaped my thinking in my personal Lean journey. I have been
able to work alongside them on a Lean implementation at a local hospital and
have valued the opportunity to see their passion for improvement firsthand.
Through our time together, I came to learn about their experience, thinking,
and improvements utilizing standardized work in a variety of settings. I have
heard many stories of the projects and learning that they had with their Japanese
sensei, Oba-san. They often recount how many of their lessons were done the
hard way, through trial and observing how they did not work, while continuing
to learn through the process.
One conversation with Tim about the application of standardized work has
stuck with me through the years. It seems elementary, but as we were develop-
ing standardized work in a department, we discussed creation of the information
for highly repetitive work, which is relatively easy to develop. Also, when tasks
are done very infrequently, and it is vital that they are done correctly, standard-
ized work is every bit as important and perhaps even more difficult to develop.
The example he shared is the job of changing the toner cartridge in a copier or
printer. At best, that task is done every few months, but when it is done, it is
very important that it is executed correctly and consistently for it to be effective.
The idea struck me, and I have shared that example many times with people in
low-volume/high-product mix settings with the message, “We don’t do it often,
but when we do it, this is the way it is to be done.”
This guide is intended to be a workbook that walks you through the devel-
opment of your standardized work. I encourage you to take it to the gemba and
use its templates and tables to document your processes as they exist today. It
is through its lessons, exercises, and repetitive use that you will gain experience
and confidence to develop your documentation and reduce variation to create a
better product.
The time Jeff and Tim had with their sensei was invaluable to shaping their
ideas and experience with standardized work, for which you are the beneficiary.
I know that their mission is to share the lessons and examples with you through
their teaching for you to learn and be more effective in improving your products
and processes. I hope that you enjoy the book and the lessons as much as I did.
Keep up the good work.

Brian W. Hudson
Senior advisor, Lean Six Sigma
Purdue Healthcare Advisors
Preface

I never expected to write another book on standardized work after Jeff and I
wrote New Horizons in Standardized Work (2011). The first book was intended to
try to share what we had learned in our many years in the manufacturing indus-
try, attempting to apply standardized work principles, tools, and techniques to
a very wide variety of situations, many of which were very different from each
other. We had found that these principles, tools, and techniques were not limited
simply to the type of processes that they were developed around. On the con-
trary, the ideas seemed to apply much more widely than simple manufacturing
and assembly processes. It was these last points that gave us the courage and
drive to write the first book, even though we did not think that anyone would
actually read it.
This book is meant to be a field guide—something that readers could take
right on out to the floor (or the gemba, if you prefer) and refer to it as needed.
It is not intended to be a reference guide or anything like that. There are plenty
of authors providing some really awesome works on the subject of Lean and
standardized work in general. What this book is meant to do is to help readers

ix
x  ◾ Preface

work through and get used to the methods, tools, and concepts so that they can
not only use them but also adapt them to other applications as needed. We also
wanted to try and make this journey through standardized work a little more
lighthearted.
In order to do this, Jeff and I invited Scott to help us by using his artistic
skills and talents to add some humor in the illustrations throughout this book.
As you read through this field guide, you will notice that Jeff, Scott, and I have
quite a few adventures of our own. This is a separate story in itself, but suffice it
to say that it turned out to be a lot of fun for us. We spent many hours working
together on the book, but the additional hours we spent on the cartoon illustra-
tions will always stand out in my mind. There were times that we would get to
laughing so hard that it was difficult to get back on a serious track. There are
also many little added extras in some of the illustrations that we will look back
on in the years to come and remember the fun times working on this book. This
field guide will always have a special place in my heart!

Timothy D. Martin

I will start by saying thank you to both Tim and Jeff for allowing me the oppor-
tunity of being a part of this incredible adventure. I can honestly say that this
has been a life-altering experience for me as both an artist and a student in the
realm of standardized work. Throughout the past year of working on this project
together, we have traveled through space and time, fought dragons, tamed wild
beasts, outwitted wizards, escaped from ninjas, survived countless disasters (both
natural and man-made), discovered priceless fortunes, and lived to tell the tales…
In an ironic and evolutionary manner, some of the Lean concepts outlined in
this book were actually applied to help create and organize the artwork that you
will see as you read. Learning how to trim the fat (of unnecessary efforts) so to
speak, and streamline both our framework and logistical processes, allowed us
to remove the unnecessary steps and focus on delivering the story in a way that
best suited the needs of the book, our publisher, and most importantly our own
(very unique) sense of humor in an efficient manner. This book has taught me
not only how to improve my own creative production output but also how to
apply the Lean concept to the other areas of my own personal and professional
life.
This has been the single most enjoyable and satisfying work that I have ever
done in my life. I only hope that you, the reader, get even a portion of the enjoy-
ment out of the illustrations within these pages as we had in creating them for
you.
For their unlimited support and inspiration (and many of the ideas and hid-
den jokes in the artwork), I would like to thank my family: to my son Mckain,
who is my best friend; to my daughter Sara, truly the most talented artist in the
family; to my daughter Izzy, who is a never-fading ray of sunshine in my life; to
my stepdaughter Katelyn, for accepting me as a part of her life; to my beautiful
 Preface  ◾  xi

wife Mahala, who has given me the best 15 years of my life, for her patience and
understanding and for believing in me; to my mother Cindi, who has supported
my pursuit of art ever since I held my first crayon; to my grandmother Big Mom,
who always has been and always will be my biggest fan; to my grandfather Big
Dad, who taught me the right way to draw a tree (and I am still trying to get
it right); to my sister Skyla, who is the most unique person whom I have ever
known; to my aunt Carla, thanks for temporarily adopting me every summer
(and allowing me to throw the occasional pool party); to my cousins Amber and
Kimberly, who were there for the best days of my childhood; and to my uncle
Jason, who first inspired my love of adventure. And, to every one of my other
fans, supporters, friends, and extended family, thank you all for your continued
support. (I originally intended to name you all individually, but I was told that the
book needed to be under 300 pages.) Finally, I thank Productivity Press—I hope
that this unique approach on teaching standardized work comes as a pleasant
surprise.

Scott A. Martin

Hopefully, you will have fun reading this book about standardized work. The
authors have done a great job of injecting the lighter side of a topic that is not
typically full of fireworks. What better way to help show the lighter side of life
than to reflect on history and a little science fiction?
You will see the enforcement of important key points through the extra notes,
comments, and follow-up exercises for each chapter. Make sure that you review
the illustrations throughout the book for additional insight, which is very difficult
to describe in words.
We hope that you gain the insight that you need to help with your journey
of establishing a truly engaged workforce in the development of work tasks that
will bring you and your business its greatest success time and time again. We
also hope that the passion that was used to help bring you this journey into stan-
dardized work will rub off on you and your coworkers.

Jeffrey T. Bell
Acknowledgments

We owe a very special “thank you” to several friends and family members whose
support, suggestions, and feedback were essential in the completion of this proj-
ect. Without them, this book would never have been a reality.

George Bell
Marjorie Bell
Cindi Burns
Skyla Burns
Emma Burton
Jason Burton
Kimberly Burton
Katelyn Dodd
Brian Hudson
Amber Jordan
Rebekah Jordan
Todd Jordan
Viktor Jordan
Carla Martin
Jimmy Martin (Big Dad)
Margene Martin (Big Mom)
Mahala Martin
Mckain Martin
Sara Martin
Izzy Martin
Jason Martin
Joe Swartz

In Memory
Dr. James Barany (1930–2011)

xiii
Chapter 1

How to Use This Field Guide

Introduction

Standardized work is a simple yet powerful concept that can be used in many
different areas to help reduce variation, improve quality, and enable more oppor-
tunities for improvement. Although it can be applied to both manufacturing and
nonmanufacturing processes, it is in the former that the majority of the tools and
techniques will be most often used. Therefore, this field guide will primarily
feature manufacturing assembly examples as we journey through various aspects

1
2  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

surrounding the more common standardized work tools and techniques. Also, in
an attempt to cover a very broad range of experiences with standardized work
methods, for our readers, we will try to break things down into smaller steps in
order to more easily follow the logic that is used to proceed from step to step.
Although this may seem a bit tedious to those readers who may already be famil-
iar with many of the principles and methods that are employed, it is our hope
that even those with a very deep knowledge of standardized work will find this
field guide very helpful.

As we get started in our travels, we will explore areas of standardized work

that for many are new and unfamiliar. It is our intention to try and make these
new areas a little clearer and less difficult to traverse. Over the years, we have
noticed a good number of Lean implementations that did not get as in depth
into the concept of standardized work as we do in this field guide. We are not
saying that they did anything wrong by not delving into many of the areas that
are explored in this field guide, but we do feel that these tools and techniques
can help us find many more opportunities to improve that might have otherwise
been missed.
 How to Use This Field Guide  ◾  3

This field guide is set up to do two main things. First, we will explore several
aspects of standardized work in greater depth. While we are at it, we will go
through various topics, tools, techniques, and methods that might be of interest
to the readers. We will also introduce real-life problems and various other dif-
ficulties that they might encounter, mostly from real-life experiences. Although
they may not be able to familiarize themselves with all of the types of problems
that are discussed during our explorations, they almost certainly will come across
some of them during their own adventures in applying standardized work tools
and techniques. Hopefully, the problems discussed will offer some extra insight
into new problems that you may discover during your own journey.

Second, we will help the readers become comfortable and familiar with the
tools and techniques that are introduced in this book. Simply reading through
some examples in the text is not a good way for people to learn, so, after each
learning journey, the next chapter is intended to be an opportunity for the
readers to work through some problems of their own while using the tools,
techniques, and methods in the previous chapter. Hopefully, it will help them
to be able to: (a) think deeper about various new problems that might occur,
(b) consider what other difficulties might arise if the circumstances were differ-
ent, and (c) what other issues might offer a challenge to the readers. Working
through the problems and issues is not meant to be a chore but rather a learn-
ing experience. The problems are not difficult, but they are meant to help the
4  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

readers to remember the tools and techniques and maybe give them some con-
fidence when trying to apply the tools and techniques to completely unfamiliar
applications.
Also, do not worry if you have difficulty solving a particular problem or
answering a particular question. The learning chapters are broken into two sec-
tions. The first section contains some problems, questions, or other challenges for
the readers on the topics that were covered in the previous chapter. The second
section contains the answers along with any interim work steps that are required
to arrive at the answer.

Along the way in the exercise chapters, we will add additional comments
based on the particular question or problem that might offer the readers some
insight on how to get started or why the particular problem might be relevant.
We will do the same in the answer section since not everyone who reads
this field guide will encounter the particular issue or problem, but they might
encounter something that is similar. It is our intention that we offer a wide vari-
ety of readers from many industries the opportunity to understand and success-
fully apply standardized work tools, techniques, and general concepts to their
own particular industries or business sectors. Therefore, the exercise chapters
also have some additional information and insight, so please do not to skip them
or else you may miss something interesting.
How to Use This Field Guide  ◾  5
Chapter 2

Layout Sketch:
Where It All Begins

Introduction

In applications of standardized work where the work is performed in sequential

steps at different physical locations as the sequence progresses, the geographic
positioning of the various steps required can have a significant impact on the
worker. If it is necessary that the worker move on to the next step in the process,
then it is imperative that we keep the waste of walking to a minimum. So, the
first thing that we realize is that the layout of the process steps is very important,
especially in applications where the worker repeats the cycle multiple times per
work period.
Let us consider a simple example. In many manual assembly applications, the
worker may actually repeat the work cycle hundreds of times per day. If we have,
say, 10 feet of unnecessary walking in the job, if the worker repeats the work
cycle 100 times per hour (a 36-second cycle) and works in the job for 8 hours,
then the amount of unnecessary walk per 8 hours is 100 × 8 × 10 = 8000 feet This
is more than 1.5 miles of walk that we have already determined was not needed.

7
8  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

If we assume that the average person takes 0.6 seconds to make a 30-inches
step (2.5 feet), then the time taken to walk 8000 feet is 8000 ÷ 2.5 × 0.6 = 1920
seconds or 1920 ÷ 60 = 32 minutes of the 8 hours. If we were somehow able to
separate this out from his or her normal work time and did this same job for an
entire year (let us say 250 days), the total time used for just this extra 10 feet of
walk per cycle would be equal to 32 × 250 = 8000 minutes or 8000 ÷ 60 = 133.3
hours. End to end, that is more than 16 8-hour days spent on just walking those
unnecessary 10 feet each cycle.
On top of all this, consider that very often the worker is carrying a part from
step to step and that these parts have some weight that is associated with them as
well as some odd shapes that might not be designed with ergonomic considerations
in mind. Upon deeper reflection, we notice that we are paying the worker for the
time to walk 8000 feet, and all he or she is doing is walking while carrying a part.
Not only is this unnecessary; the worker is also needlessly fatigued (see Figure 2.1).
We now see that the excessive distance between successive work steps can
greatly impact the worker as well as add waste to his or her job. If we are not
diligent in our efforts of job design, we can easily add enormous waste into the
work. At this point, it becomes evident that the layout plays an important role in
standardized work.
Before we can analyze a layout of process steps for improvement oppor-
tunities, we first must capture the layout in a meaningful way. Once we have
done this, we can also use it for communicating with others. Although for some

Figure 2.1  Avoid unnecessary work whenever possible.

 Layout Sketch  ◾  9

Figure 2.2  Basic layout sketch rules (guidelines actually).

communication purposes, we may need a very accurate representation, in the
beginning, we only need a sketch that reflects the basics of the layout. We simply
refer to this as a layout sketch. It is very easy to produce a layout sketch. In order
to help move things along, we have provided some rules (Martin and Bell 2011,
p. 38) that we find helpful. (Although we may refer to them as rules, they are not
really carved in stone—they are more like guidelines, as shown in Figure 2.2.)

Basic Layout Sketch Rules

◾◾ Sketch a rough approximation of each workstation and its location in rela-
tion to the other workstations.
◾◾ Each major work sequence step is shown as a number within a circle.
◾◾ The steps are connected by solid arrows.
◾◾ The return to the step that begins to repeat the sequence is shown with a
dashed arrow.
◾◾ The work step, equipment name, etc., can be shown for clarity.

As we get started in our creation of a layout sketch, we need an example appli-

cation to use. For most of the examples in this field guide, we will use the assembly
of a simple toy truck (Figure 2.3). There are five major steps in this example:

1. Body assembly—putting the body parts onto the chassis

2. Wheel assembly—adding the wheels to the body assembly
3. Final assembly—adding the people and the top to the wheel assembly
4. Wheel test—placing the final assembly into a wheel tester machine
5. Inspect and pack—inspecting the tested assembly for defects and packing if
good
10  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 2.3  Truck example.

In our truck example, we will refer to the various locations as workstations or

just stations for short. From our discussion on the waste of excess walking in the
“Introduction” section, we know that we need to keep the distance between suc-
cessive steps at a minimum. Let us say that the stations are simply placed side by
side in a line and the sequence goes from right to left, as shown in Figure 2.4.
Before we go any further, we see at least one problem jumping out at us.
Although the next station in the sequence is very close to the previous one mini-
mizing the walk between them, this does not hold true if the worker continues
repeating the same cycle over and over. Once a cycle is complete, he or she must
walk back to the first station to start the next one. So, in this layout, although

Figure 2.4  A work layout with station side by side in straight line.

Figure 2.5  Same work as previous diagram, but in U-shaped work cell layout.
 Layout Sketch  ◾  11

the walk between consecutive steps seems minimized, this is not the case when
going from the last step back to the first step. In order to reduce this distance,
the last station must be closer to the first station. As this distance is reduced,
instead of a straight line like what we started with, the layout must be curved
or folded. Based on the size and shape of the stations (often referred to as their
footprint), the layout will take on a more folded shape—this is why these layouts,
most often called work cells, are shaped more like the letter U (see Figure 2.5).

Some Problems Are More Complicated

Another important point to consider before we go on with our updated exam-
ple is that the worker moves in a kind of circular pattern in a clockwise direc-
tion. If the layout was in the opposite direction, some might say that he or she
could also travel in a counterclockwise (or anticlockwise) direction just as eas-
ily. Which one is best? To answer that, we must take a few moments to con-
sider things from a broader perspective. First, it is a fairly common assumption
that the majority of people in the world are categorized as right handed. What
impact will this have on a work cell layout? As we start to think deeper about
this, it is also important to consider the size and shape of any items that the
worker may be required to carry between stations—and whether or not they
require both hands or only one hand. All of this could keep us bogged down
for a very long time trying to develop the perfect layout for every work cell
that comes along. Fortunately, there are a few guidelines that we can use that
will help us.
12  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

In our experiences, the best way to describe this is to first consider the
clockwise-­versus-counterclockwise issues. If the worker has both hands in use
upon approach to a station (carrying a part, for example), the question seems to
be irrelevant as the situation appears to be the same regardless of the direction
of approach. In such a situation, he or she would have to stop, in some cases
turn, and then place the part using both hands (assuming that the machine is
empty), so neither direction of approach would seem to have an advantage over
the other at this point. So, for the moment, we will stop our analysis of two-
handed carry scenarios to look at one-handed scenarios—does one have an
advantage over the other? See Figure 2.6.

Figure 2.6  Is one hand better than the other?

 Layout Sketch  ◾  13

As we try to answer this latest question, we must consider what the worker
will be doing when he or she arrives at the station. In some instances, he or
she will stop, possibly turn, place the part down, do some additional work, pick
the part back up, and then move on to the next station. If this is the case, there
may be no significant advantage for this particular station. In other instances,
the worker may only remove (unload) a part that was left at the station from the
previous cycle, load the new part, and continue—this occurs very frequently in
order to eliminate the waste of having him or her wait for something to com-
plete (such as a machine operation). If the hand closest to the station is occupied
upon approach, then the situation is similar to that where both hands are occu-
pied, and thus this seems to offer no advantage. However, in this scenario, there
appears to be an advantage if the hand nearest the completed part from the pre-
vious cycle is unoccupied because this offers the opportunity for the unoccupied
hand to start unloading the completed part earlier and thus reduce the time that
is spent at the station by the worker.

Now that we have surmised that there is an advantage to having the lead-
ing hand free upon approach, there are a couple more things to consider. First,
which hand requires the most accuracy—the one unloading or the one load-
ing? The answer is easy as this is what defines the right- or left-handed category
of the worker. Since loading almost always includes some form of part location
(pins, rails, etc.), a bit more dexterity is required in loading than unloading,
which usually is just a single simple motion. Thus, the dominant hand (right or
left scenario) is the one that most workers will use to load with—which means
that the nondominant hand is the one that we would want to be unoccupied
and leading upon approach to the station. When this is the case, the unloading
can begin as soon as the unoccupied hand is within range so that the part in
the occupied hand can begin loading as soon as it is within range. In instances
where no other work is required by the worker, he or she may not even have to
stop and turn, thus eliminating even more time.
14  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

One last point, once the worker leaves the station in our scenario, the domi-
nant hand is unoccupied because the part is still in the nondominant hand. This
means that he or she will need to move the part to the other hand before arriv-
ing at the next station. However, since this can be done during the walk to the
next station, it is not a significant issue. As we complete our analysis, we realize
that upon approach, there are only two combinations where the leading hand is
unoccupied and the dominant hand is occupied: (1) right hand/counterclockwise
and (2) left hand/clockwise. Since the consensus is that the majority of people
are right handed, in this field guide, we will go with the assumption that the
cell direction will be counterclockwise to accommodate the largest number of
workers.

Now that the preferred direction of process step progression has been estab-
lished, we can proceed with our discussion on layout sketches.

To create a layout sketch, it is important to understand the geographical

perspective of the stations and their relationship with the sequence of the
work flow. First, draw a sketch that represents the geographic layout of the
work area. Show only the equipment that is a part of the worker’s cycle at this
point.
 Layout Sketch  ◾  15

Next, using a number inside of a circle, label each process step location in the
work sequence as it is performed even if the worker must walk back and forth
or even retrace steps. Then, use arrows to show movement from one location to
another—solid line arrows for steps that are internal to the sequence and a dashed
line arrow to show when the operator has completed an entire cycle and is about to
start the next complete cycle. If several steps are generally at the same location, con-
sider that as a single geographic location for most instances, and number the steps
accordingly—it is possible that a location has more than one sequence number.
16  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

In order to keep the layout sketch as simple as possible, it is important to

only include information that is relevant to the work and necessary to show any
problems that are caused by outside issues. For example, if there are p­ hysical
obstructions—­things that would cause the worker to vary his or her path in
order to get to the next workstation—these should be included as they are neces-
sary to help illustrate a problem that exists.

Food for Thought

In our discussion on cell direction in the “Some Problems Are More Complicated”
section, we stopped our analysis of the scenario where the worker was required
to use both hands to carry a part to the next station. At that point, the direc-
tion of approach seemed irrelevant to our discussion. However, there are some
important issues to consider in situations where a two-handed carry is required.
In some instances, the worker will stop, turn, place the part down, do some
additional work, pick the part back up, and move on to the next station. In
such situations, no part is left in the station, so, upon approach, he or she has
somewhere to place the part. But, what about instances where he or she may
only remove (unload) a part that was left at the station from the previous cycle,
load the new part, and continue? Remember that, upon approach, the worker is
already carrying a part. In order to place the new part, the completed part may
need to be removed. This presents some additional issues.

In this scenario, if the worker cannot load the part that he or she is carrying
directly into the machine, then he or she must first place the part in an interim
spot, unload the previously completed part and place it at yet another interim
spot, then pick up the first part, place it in the machine nest, and then pick
 Layout Sketch  ◾  17

up the previously completed part before moving on. This scenario can involve
an enormous amount of wasted motion if we are not diligent in our efforts at
designing the cell.
There are several ways to eliminate or reduce the wasted motion that was
described above. Unfortunately, they all seem to add additional cost and com-
plexity. Some that we have seen include automatic unloading of a completed
part, dual nesting, and using a second machine. Out of these three options, the
one we like best is the automatic unloading. In this scenario, the nest is empty
upon approach, so the worker can place the new part, grab the previously com-
pleted part, and move on. The dual nesting scenario usually requires a lot more
complexity than the automatic unloading and thus can often be very costly.
Using a second machine seems to be a very costly solution as well; however, it is
seen more frequently than you might expect.
Chapter 3

Questions for Layout

Sketch Review

Introduction

In Chapter 2, we walked through the basic process of how to develop a layout

sketch. We also took a few side trips to discuss some of the closely related issues
that surround the layout of a work cell. The intent of doing it in the manner we
did was to also introduce the idea that continuous improvement is not just some-
thing that you do after the fact. If we learn to think deeper about what we are
doing as well as why we are doing it, it is possible to begin the improvement
process much earlier. If the cell already exists, we can begin to identify areas
where we can start improving. But, if the cell does not yet exist or is still being

19
20  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

designed, we might possibly start making improvements even before the equip-
ment is acquired or the work is defined.
We have found that the best way to learn is by doing. But, just simply repeat-
ing the steps for doing something does not help us to think deeper about it. There
must be other aspects that are introduced in order to take us out into a little more
unfamiliar territory so that we are forced to stop and think. It is in this way that
we are placed in the position of trying to understand the impact that changing the
conditions or variables has on the particular situation that we are learning about.
The best way is to be right there at the gemba (where the real work is occurring).
However, if the cell and the work are still being designed, or if the workplace has
not yet been assembled, the situation is much different. In this case, the gemba is
wherever we are doing the designing. Sometimes, this is in an office environment
or in a work area where we are trying to fabricate and use full-size mock-ups. No
matter the environment, we can still go to the gemba and, from there, continue
to learn and think deeper about the situation so that we can strive for continuous
improvement, even before the problems actually exist.

Question 1: A worker has 12.5 feet of walk that is considered excessive in a

work cell layout. How many miles per year would this be equivalent to?
Given
1. The work cell has a 36-second cycle time.
2. The work time is 7.5 hours/day.
3. There are 250 workdays per year.
Remember: 1 hour = 3600 seconds
5280 feet/miles
 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  21

Use the answer area for question 1 for your answer.

When the number of cycles required for a work cell per year is high, even
a single foot of unnecessary walk can have a huge impact. If the extra walk is
significant in itself, the impact can often be dramatic. Sometimes, it is difficult to
visualize the impact that waste has on a situation. When dealing with walking
distances, we often found that a useful way to help others understand the impact
is to convert the annual total of the extra walk from something that they could
compare to something that they could more easily relate to. Sometimes, just using
miles of walk per year can make a lasting impression. Other times, it might be to
use some other familiar distances such as football fields, buildings, mountains, or
the distance from one city to another.
It is important to note that even though we can easily appreciate the impact
of making improvements, we often have to get buy-in and approval from
others­before we can implement the improvement. This is especially true
when we need to spend money or resources in order to try the improvement.
Therefore, we may have to try and find a way to help someone else more
easily compare the cost of implementation to the benefits that are expected
from the improvement. Another way that we have found useful is to put the
expected benefits into added capacity, revenue, and output instead of reduced
costs.

Question 2: If 12.5 feet of extra walk could be eliminated from the work cell
layout in question 1, how many more parts per year could be made in the work
cell?
Given

1. One step of walk is equal to 2.5 feet

2. The worker can travel 2.5 feet or one step in 0.60 seconds.
22  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Use the answer area for question 2 for your answer.

In the first exercise, we tried to visualize the impact of unnecessary walk, which
we know would reduce labor costs. However, in the second exercise, we find that
another useful way to look at improvement opportunities is to show the impact on
output in terms that are easily understood. Increased capacity is very helpful, espe-
cially when we are dealing with situations where the more parts we can produce, the
more revenue we can generate (which assumes of course that the parts can be sold).

Finding a way to express the added expenses or the lost opportunities due to
waste in a work cell is usually a very important part of getting everyone focused on
continuous improvement. It can have an enormous impact on those who are work-
ing in the cell as well. Eliminating unnecessary walk not only helps reduce wasted
expenses; the worker is also not as tired at the end of the day, and that makes his
 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  23

or her life easier. However, if the worker is kept engaged and involved in making­
the work better, it can have an even greater impact over time as most workers get
incredible satisfaction from helping to improve their own job. Most people take
great pride in the work that they do, and getting involved in continuously improving
the work can be a great staff satisfier—and, who knows, the work might be better
than those who do it every day? It can definitely mean a win–win situation when
the workers and the company are working together to make things better.

Question 3: (Choose one) Which of the following steps is incorrect when cre-
ating a basic layout sketch?

A. Each major work sequence step is shown as a number within a circle.

B. The steps are connected by solid arrows.
C. The return to the step that begins to repeat the sequence is shown with a
solid arrow.
D. Work step, equipment name, etc., can be shown for clarity.

Use the answer area for question 3 for your answer.

Question 4: In a two-handed scenario, what would happen if the machine

was not empty when the worker arrived?
24  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Use the answer area for question 4 for your answer.

These situations are common for work cells where there is a machine cycle
that is involved. If the machine cycle is very short, it may be worthwhile to just
let the worker wait for the machine to complete the cycle so that he or she can
unload the part and move on. However, if the machine cycle is not very short,
it is often undesirable to have the worker wait. In order to allow the worker to
move on, he or she would need a part that had already been completed. This
means that the part from the previous cycle would be complete and ready to
take in the place of the one being brought by the worker on this cycle. It also
means that there must always be one part of work-in-process inventory for the
cycle to be the same each time.
 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  25

It does not take a very in-depth analysis to figure out that if both hands are
occupied upon approach, before the worker can do anything else, he or she must
free up his or her hands. The next logical step is to set the part(s) down. If he or
she is able to set the part directly into the station nest, then his or her hands are
free again, and work can continue. However, if the worker is required to place
the part at an intermediate location so that he or she can manually move the
part in the work nest of the station, he or she also has to do the same with the
part that he or she is unloading—put it in an intermediate unload spot so that it
can be picked back up upon leaving for the next station in the work cycle. All of
these intermediate moves are waste as we well know. The best solution would be
to have an automatic unload after the machine is complete so that as the worker
sets down the part that he or she is carrying, it can be placed directly into the
machine nest so that the cycle can start as soon as possible. The worker can then
pick up the part from the previous cycle and move on to the next station.

Question 5: (a) (True or false) When designing the layout for a work cell, estab-
lishing a counterclockwise direction of flow in the work cell would be the preferred
direction for the typical work force. (b) Also, briefly explain why your answer is
either true or false. Use the answer area for questions 5a and 5b for your answer.
26  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 6: (Choose one) Which of the following options is the most expen-
sive one for establishing an empty work nest for a workstation or a machine in a
work cell?

A. Automatic unload for a completed part

B. Dual nesting feature
C. An additional machine
D. A duplicate work cell

Use the answer area for question 6 for your answer.

When we start to think deeper about the problem of a work cell that has a
machine process time that is too long for the worker to stay and wait for the cycle
to complete, our thoughts quickly progress to considering the best alternative for
dealing with the issue. As often happens in a work cell, the machine process does
not always take into account the problem that we are considering. In such cases, we
are faced with finding the best way to resolve the issue in our particular situation.

If the machine manufacturer does not offer a solution, we may be forced to

consider other less desirable alternatives. Adding an automatic unload or a dual
nesting feature to a purchased machine or designing and building a custom
 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  27

machine will require engaging a custom equipment builder. Not only can this be
very expensive; it will also add additional problems due to unforeseen issues of
the customizations—deeper thinking by the machine builder is critical, and we
cannot always count on this covering every aspect of the process. The cost of an
additional machine (or machines) can actually be the lesser of the two evils—the
cost of off-the-shelf equipment versus the costs of overly complicated modified or
custom-built equipment and added downtime due to modification-related issues.

Answers for Layout Sketch Questions

Question 1: A worker has 12.5 feet of walk that is considered excessive in a work
cell layout. How many miles per year would this be equivalent to?

Given

1. The work cell has a 36-second cycle time.

2. The work time is 7.5 hours/day.
3. There are 250 workdays per year.

Remember: 1 hour = 3600 seconds

5280 feet/miles
28  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

See answer for question 1.

A marathon is about 26 miles and some odd feet. In this exercise, the num-
ber of added miles per year that the worker must walk is converted to the num-
ber of full marathons that would be represented by the distance. This might
have a good impact on a certain audience and less of an impact on others. The
important issue is to find a way to relate the distance to your particular audi-
ence. Often, people will put the distance in several different contexts in order to
try and reach multiple audiences simultaneously. The comparison used is not as
important as getting the audience to understand the impact.

Question 2: If 12.5 feet of extra walk could be eliminated from the work cell
layout in question 1, how many more parts per year could be made in the work
cell?
Given

1. One step of walk is equal to 2.5 feet

2. The worker can travel 2.5 feet or one step in 0.60 seconds.

See answer for question 2.

 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  29

Putting the lost opportunities into the right context is very important as we
have discussed in the “Introduction” section. In this exercise, the added capac-
ity can mean more revenue, less overtime, and so on. Understand that continu-
ous improvement is not simply a way of saving the company money but also a
way to preserve jobs, and growing the business can be a very high motivator—
especially in these tough economic times. Continuous improvement also gives
the workers a chance to try and get involved with helping preserve their own
jobs as well as the jobs of their coworkers. Most importantly, it gives everyone
the chance to be part of the team.

Question 3: (Choose one) Which of the following steps is incorrect when cre-
ating a basic layout sketch?

A. Each major work sequence step is shown as a number within a circle.

B. The steps are connected by solid arrows.
30  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

C. The return to the step that begins to repeat the sequence is shown with a
solid arrow.
D. Work step, equipment name, etc., can be shown for clarity.

See answer for question 3.

Question 4: In a two-handed scenario, what would happen if the machine

was not empty when the worker arrived?

See answer for question 4.

As we should be able to recognize at this point, the parts that require the
worker to use both hands to carry can add extra complexity to the work cell if
there are machine cycles involved that require the worker to leave a part in the
 Questions for Layout Sketch Review  ◾  31

machine and continue on with a part that was left from the previous cycle. This
was not an issue with parts that only required one hand as the worker could use
both hands at the same time—to unload with one hand while simultaneously
unloading the completed part with the other hand. Understanding this can help
make a great impact on knowing the things that drive cost during the design
phase. It might not be possible to have that much impact on the size of a part,
for example, but for those parts that are awkward to handle, it could make the
difference between a one- and a two-handed carry. Sometimes, being creative in
the overall shape, center of gravity, footprint, or other features involved with how
the part is handled by a person can make an enormous difference.

Question 5: (a) (True or false) When designing the layout for a work cell,
establishing a counterclockwise direction of flow in the work cell would be the
preferred direction for the typical work force. (b) Also, briefly explain why your
answer is either true or false. (See answer for questions 5a and 5b.)

Counterclockwise would be the preferred direction for a typical work force or

if we wanted to make sure that we design the layout to accommodate the larg-
est number of workers. However, it is conceivable that we would want to design
the cell for a single individual. This often happens in smaller businesses where
32  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

the worker turnover is not expected to be an issue. Another situation where

this could be the case is where the workstations can easily and quickly be rear-
ranged. In such a scenario, the station nests and the equipment would have to be
designed to be used for either direction.

Question 6: (Choose one) Which of the following options is the most expen-
sive one for establishing an empty work nest for a workstation or a machine in a
work cell?

A. Automatic unload for a completed part

B. Dual nesting feature
C. An additional machine
D. A duplicate work cell

See answer for question 6.

Chapter 4

Standardized Work Chart:

Building on an Idea

Introduction

In Chapter 3, we discussed the importance of the layout sketch. We learned that

it is essential to show not only the problems and issues that are associated with
the geographic positioning of the workstations but also how the worker will
interface with the stations. With proper planning and deeper thinking, it is pos-
sible to use a good layout sketch to start making improvements early—in some
cases, even before the work cell is built.

33
34  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

So, how do we build on this foundation—the idea of continuously making

improvements as we go along? We can do this by continuing to think deeper
about what it is that we are trying to accomplish and the steps that we are taking
for the objectives. In the case of the layout sketch, we know that it is an impor-
tant tool, but how do we support the idea of continuously searching for ways to
do things even better? For a start, we must ensure that the layout sketch is one of
the basic starting points in our efforts to improve. A way that we can do this is
by creating a standardized work chart (SWC). But, what exactly is a standardized
work chart?

SWC
As we discussed in New Horizons in Standardized Work (Martin and Bell 2011,
p. 2), standardized work can simply be described as “the currently best-known
method for accomplishing the work.” It does not say that it is the only way to do
the work. There are usually many different ways to accomplish the work. But,
if different workers are doing the work differently, the results will not always be
the same, and, quite often, the amount of time taken to do the work is not the
same either. When the results are not exactly the same every time, we describe
the differences as variation. We have already learned that reducing unnecessary
activities such as walking is a fundamental step in making improvements; reduc-
ing variation is another. In our discussion in Chapter 2 on cell layout design and
analysis, we determined that in order to accommodate the greatest number of
workers, most work cells are designed for right-hand workers progressing along
a counterclockwise path. In order to communicate the details of how the work
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  35

in the cell is intended to be performed, as well as serve as a basis for continu-

ous improvement, we must capture and document the information in a clear
and consistent fashion. This is one of the purposes of the SWC. A simple SWC is
shown in Figure 4.1.
The SWC should be very simple and only contain information that is relevant
for communicating the current method that is to be used for accomplishing the
work for a single-worker job. The central point of the SWC is the layout sketch.
This conveys the sequence and direction of the worker when performing the
work. However, it does not tell us how long the work should take if done cor-
rectly. And, since each worker is different, how do we determine how long we
think that the work should take when performed correctly? For this, we need
a standard time for comparison purposes on the SWC as well. But, how do we
determine this standard time? In New Horizons in Standardized Work (Martin
and Bell 2011, pp. 59–64), we discussed the concept of takt time (TT). In the
simplest terms, takt time “is used to describe the cadence or pace at which a
product (or service) needs to be produced in order to satisfy customer demand in
the time we have allotted to do so.” This tells us how often something should be
completed in order to meet our customer’s requirements based on our planned
working schedules, not how long the work should actually take. We will need to
think deeper if we want to find a way to determine this time.

Standardized work chart

Vehicle assembly SWFG Truck Date: 7/14/15

Standard in-process stock Hand-off point Last changed by:
TT = 36 DCT = 34.6 Rev. 1.2
Quality check Safety issue TM

Inspect and pack Wheel test

5 4

3 Final assembly

1 2

Task summary
1 Body assembly
2 Wheel assembly Body assembly Wheel assembly
3 Final assembly
4 Wheel test
5 Inspect and pack

Figure 4.1  A simple SWC.

36  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

TT and Desired Cycle Time

If we observe workers doing the work correctly and measure the time that is
taken, it is possible to determine a time that we feel is a reasonable target or, in
other words, the desired cycle time (DCT). The DCT should be less than or equal
to the TT; otherwise, we will not be able to meet our customer’s requirements.
TT is calculated by dividing the customer requirements for a period of time (day,
week, month, etc.) into the work time that is allotted for meeting these require-
ments during the same time period. For example, if our customer needs 140
parts per day and we have dedicated 420 minutes of work time per day, then

TT = 420 minutes ÷ 140 parts = 3 minutes/part

However, this does not tell us that it takes 3 minutes of work to complete a
part; it simply says that in order to meet our customer’s requirements within the
planned work time, we will need to produce at a rate that equals 3 minutes per
part—if we intend to meet the requirements with 420 minutes of work time per
day.
If the DCT and TT do not match for our planned schedule, then we must
adjust the working time that is allotted and/or the number of workers/cells to
vary the TT in order to achieve an acceptable match between the time that is
taken by the worker(s) and the customer requirements. The DCT is based on
establishing a standard time for the work itself regardless of the variations in the
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  37

schedules. Also, there may be multiple workers who are involved in a work cell,
and their individual DCTs may not always be equal—even though the TT will
be the same for all of them. For this reason, we prefer to include both the DCT
and TT on the SWC along with the layout sketch. We can easily calculate the TT,
but how can we determine the DCT? First, we must observe, but we know that
even the same worker will have some variation, so we will need a way to choose
what we feel is the best time to use for the DCT. Before we can do that, we need
to find a way to measure the time that the worker takes for each cycle—for this,
we will need a stopwatch.

Stopwatches
There are two main types of stopwatches (see Figure 4.2). The simplest one just
displays the time that is accumulated from the initial actuation of the start/stop
button to the next successive actuation where the accumulation of time stops
and a way to reset the timer to zero. This is good for a single event, but it is not
adequate for measuring consecutive events since it stops the timing on the sec-
ond activation of the button. The other type has a feature that is referred to as
memories. This feature allows the user to store the time between successive actu-
ations of the button, while the stopwatch continues to accumulate the time from
the initial actuation of the button until the timer is stopped or until the maxi-
mum number of memories is reached. This type of stopwatch normally has two
or more rows that display time. Usually, one of them will display the continued

Figure 4.2  Typical examples of the two most common stopwatch types.
38  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

accumulation of time, while the other will indicate the time that is captured since
the last timing actuation. Some have more than two displays, but they are not
critical to our discussion. Regardless of the number of displays present, after the
observation is complete, the memories can be recalled in the original order so
that it is possible to measure sequential events of greatly varying times—when
done, it also has a way to reset the display and memories back to zero. The first
type may seem too simple for our purposes yet can still be useful to us. But,
before we go on, it is necessary for us to think deeper about what we are trying
to measure and how we will do it.
In our discussion about the DCT, we found that we need to determine
a target (or standard) time that the work should basically take each and
every time that it is performed correctly. But, if there is some variation, even
between cycles by the same worker (we are only human after all), how do
we determine the best number to use as the standard time? There are several
methods that we can use, such as average or lowest repeatable, but first we
need to get the numbers. We will start by considering the simple stopwatch
technique since it can also be performed using many different timing devices
from watches to clocks to smart phones and only requires simple division to
get an average time per cycle. But, before we continue, we should discuss
some of the issues to be considered when selecting start/stop read points
when using a stopwatch.

Some Tips on Choosing Start/Stop Points

The fundamental problem with trying to observe and measure work time in a
cell is that the work is continuous in nature and does not stop—which does not
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  39

allow us very much flexibility. Unfortunately, if we realize that we have made an

error, we must stop and take the observation back to the start. Sometimes, mak-
ing a mistake is unavoidable, but, with some careful thinking and preplanning,
we can take steps to minimize the likelihood of error happening.

The first item to consider is exactly what constitutes the beginning of a par-
ticular event. Since we will be observing, it seems only natural that we look
for visual cues that recur each time that this point in the cycle is reached. For
example, this could be a touch as the worker reaches for something. Another
possibility is watching for the worker to begin taking a step toward something.
Yet, another would be to watch for a light or a light-emitting diode that corre-
sponds to the read point being observed to change states. What matters most is
that the observer is able to discern these points every time they occur. Next, we
consider whether other cues might work. Sometimes, it is possible to align the
read point with a sound instead. The sound could be a click from some kind of
a mechanism, the operation of a solenoid, or any other sound that occurs every
time the same point is reached. The next consideration is that of something that
can be felt. Some things can actually be felt when they occur, especially when
larger machines are involved. Regardless of the cues selected, it is critical to be
able to consistently recognize them in order to minimize the error from reaction
time as well as reduce the opportunities for mistakes. We can now continue with
our discussion.
40  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Simple Stopwatch Method

Since we know that the simple stopwatch can only measure a single event, we
will measure the time that is taken for some number of consecutive cycles and
then divide that time by the total number of complete cycles during that time
period. The important aspects are the number of cycles in the average calcula-
tion, taking care to avoid including time for partial cycles at the starting and
ending points. In the latter case, we can surmise that the points we want to use
to synchronize our stop and start actions on the measuring device are when the
first cycle in the measurement event begins and when the last full cycle ends.
For a single event, the starting and stopping read points are the same; if they
are not, then we have introduced some error into the calculation. This particu-
lar type of error gets smaller as the number of cycles in the measurement event
increases. However, this makes testing for small changes in time due to continu-
ous improvement efforts more time consuming since a large number of cycles
may be required based on the amount of potential change. But, the technique
itself is quite simple.

First, we must choose a good place in the process to use as the start/stop read
point for actuating the button that starts the accumulation of time. As discussed
in the “Some Tips on Choosing Start/Stop Points” section, it is very important
to select a consistent and repeatable cue that occurs each time this point in the
process is reached. If we have good cue, the error introduced by a delay in our
physical reaction time will be much less.

Once we have selected a good start/stop point cue, we are ready to begin the
timing of the observation. Start the timing on the stopwatch by pushing the start/
stop button. (Some simple stopwatches may have different names for the buttons.)
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  41

While the stopwatch continues to accumulate the passage of time, keep count
of the number of completed cycles. Some people will use a pencil and paper,
whereas others may prefer different methods. The key here is to make sure that
we get an accurate count. If we use a very large number of completed cycles, the
error in calculating the average will not be that significant, but, the smaller the
total, the larger the effect the error will have on the average.

When we are ready to stop timing the observation, we must align our stop-
ping point to ensure that the last cycle captured is complete. In most cases, this
means that worker may have to walk back from the last station in the process to
return to the first station and then reach the point that would signify the begin-
ning of the next cycle. Once this start/stop read point is reached, the timing on
the stopwatch is stopped by pressing the appropriate button on your model of
stopwatch.

After the timing is complete, it is usually a good idea to write down or oth-
erwise record both the total accumulated time and the number of completed
cycles. It is especially important to keep the information of the sample observa-
tion if we want to understand the history of improvement activity for a particular
work cell. Some people do not feel that this is a critical aspect of improvement.
However, others like to track not only successful improvement efforts but also
those that were not successful.

Divide the total accumulated time by the number of full cycles that are com-
pleted. This will give us the average time per cycle for this observation. As
mentioned earlier in this section, the larger the number of completed cycles in
the observation, the lesser impact any error introduced will have on the average
time.
42  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Now that we better understand this method, we can summarize the steps, as
shown in the following:

1. Choose the start/stop read point for measurement.

2. Start timing on the stopwatch when this point occurs in the work cycle.
3. Keep count of completed cycles while time accumulates on the stopwatch.
4. When stop point occurs on completion of last cycle, stop timing on the
stopwatch.
5. Record the total accumulated time and number of completed cycles.
6. Divide the time by the number of cycles to get the average time per cycle.

In this method, we have calculated an average cycle time. How does this aver-
age time compare to the TT (customer requirements)? Up to this point, we have
been considering cells with only one worker. Some cells will have multiple work-
ers, all trying to get their work done in less than the TT. The assumption is that
each worker has the same work time to accomplish; otherwise, some of the work-
ers will be waiting (a form of waste). Another way of looking at this is that the
total amount of worker time in a multiple-worker cell should add up to a multiple
of TT (e.g., 2 × TT for a two-person cell) if all the workers are fully utilized.
We now understand that the average time for a cycle will most likely vary
from day to day, worker to worker, or even for the same worker on different
days. It is important to understand that the average, though useful for some pur-
poses such as getting a ballpark estimate for use in comparing as a standard, will
not be able to tell us some of the other things that we may want to know. Some
of these things include the variation, the best and worst times, and so on. There
are some other issues with this scenario as well. First, how likely is it that the
amount of work for each worker will match perfectly to the TT? It is probably not
too likely, so, in cells with multiple workers, we can expect mismatches between
them, which will result in workers with shorter times waiting on those with
longer times. This can sometimes cause the shorter-time worker to adjust his or
her pace to try and better match the pace of his or her longer-time counterpart.
This a common issue because waiting can appear to be goofing off to those who
do not know that the waiting is built-in. In this situation, it can be very difficult
to improve since there is also a balancing aspect to multiple-worker cells. So, in
order to try and balance the work better between the workers and the machines,
we need to be able to break down the work components so that the job can be
analyzed for opportunities to transfer the components between all the workers.
This is where the memory stopwatch technique can help.

Memory Stopwatch Method #1

The memory stopwatch methods utilize a stopwatch feature that allows single
time intervals from an ongoing event to be stored on demand, while the overall
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  43

time continues to accumulate. These stored readings are often referred to as lap
memories since this stopwatch feature is prevalent in sports where individual
lap times are of interest. The feature allows us to capture the time for sequential
events such as successive laps, while the time for the entire event continues to
accumulate. There are several ways that this can be utilized for our purposes.
First, the memory stopwatch can be used in the same manner as the simple
stopwatch if desired—to get an average time per cycle. However, a more power-
ful use is to measure the individual times for some number of consecutive cycles.
This allows us to compare the variation between cycles by a worker or even
compare the variation between different workers doing the same job. This is very
useful for pursuing continuous improvement since it can help identify the con-
tributors to variation.
The first method we will discuss using the memory stopwatch is aimed at
capturing consecutive individual cycles. The method starts out the same as the
simple stopwatch method. Choose the start/stop read point for a complete cycle.
Next, while observing the worker performing the work, press the start button
when the first cycle begins, and then press the lap button each time that the
worker starts another new cycle—except for the last cycle. For the last cycle, we
will press the stop button at the point where another new cycle would be start-
ing in order to ensure that the stopping point coincides with the starting point.
The method is explained in more detail as follows.

As we did in the simple stopwatch method, we must choose a good place in

the process to use as the start/stop read point for actuating the button that starts
the accumulation of time. We now understand that it is very important to select a
consistent and repeatable cue that occurs each time that this point in the process
is reached. If we can find a good cue to use, we can greatly reduce any error
that is introduced due to the physical reaction time.

In this method, after we have selected a good start/stop point cue, we can
begin the timing of the observation. We start the timing on the memory stop-
watch by pushing the appropriate button. Several models that we have used over
the years have a start/stop button. Your individual model of memory stopwatch
may have a different button name, but the action of starting the timing is the
desired result.
44  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

While the stopwatch continues to accumulate the passage of time, observe

for the recurrence of the start/stop read point, which indicates the completion of
another cycle. However, with a memory stopwatch, we will actuate the appropri-
ate button that stores the time since the last button actuation in memory. In most
models, we have seen that this button was referred to as lap, reset, split, and so
on. Regardless of the name, the action desired is to store the last time interval
into memory, while the total accumulation of time continues.

Just as with the simple stopwatch method, when we are ready to stop timing,
we must align our stopping point to ensure that the last cycle captured is com-
plete. Once this start/stop read point is reached, the timing on the stopwatch is
stopped by pressing the appropriate button on your model of stopwatch. The last
time interval is also stored into one of the memories.

When the timing is complete, it is necessary that we write down or other-

wise record memories. In this method, the contents of each memory correspond
to the time for a complete cycle, stored in sequence as observed. As discussed
in the “Simple Stopwatch Method” section, it is often a good idea to record the
information from our improvement efforts. It is also a good idea to do so for this
method in order to ensure that we do not accidently clear the memories and lose
our information before we are finished with it. Depending on the number of
cycles recorded in the observation, you may want to prepare a simple paper form
to help organize the data better when we recall them from the stopwatch. Note
also that the order that we recall the memories is also the order that the cycles
occurred. This can also be useful information as well. The simple paper form
can prove to be very valuable in our efforts.
In some instances, a simple table can be sketched out quickly to hold the
information. This will suffice in some cases, but it can be difficult for other
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  45

people to follow. Things can also change over time as we go through our analy-
sis of an observation. Many times, we will think of another aspect that we may
be interested in. For example, we are usually interested in using this method in
order to capture the individual cycle times. But, once we have these times, we
are also interested in looking at the maximum variation. Spreadsheet programs
are an easy way to quickly create a prepared form that can not only help us
organize our data but also add or change them very quickly. This is not the case
for a sketched form, as shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4.
In this simple prepared form, we can also describe what it is that we are
measuring and record the starting and stopping points that are used, the 10
different observed cycle times (OCTs), the total build time for the number of
observations, and the average build time per observation. The lower portion
helps us select the highest and lowest cycle times (CT high and CT low) so that
the maximum variation (V) can be calculated for the set of observed cycles.
We are not big fans of forms, but we do like to organize our data in order to
better analyze them. The one above can be put together in just a few minutes
using a common spreadsheet program, or you can sketch it by hand and make
copies.
We can summarize the memory stopwatch method #1 into five steps as
follows:

1. Choose a start/stop point for measurement.

2. Start timing on the stopwatch when this point occurs in the work cycle.
3. Actuate the split/lap button for every complete cycle except for the last
one.
4. When the stop point occurs on completion of the last cycle, stop timing on
the stopwatch.
5. Using a prepared form or just paper, recall and record the cycle times; these
are in same order as observed.

Figure 4.3  Hand-sketched prepared form.

Read points Observations

Build Average
# Description Starting Ending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 time build
total time

CThigh = ____ ; CTlow = ____

Variation = ____ − ____ = ____ (V)

Figure 4.4  Spreadsheet form with additional information.

46  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Variation
In the simple spreadsheet form shown in Figure 4.4, the bottom section intro-
duced a method for determining the variation (V) between the highest and
lowest values that are observed. This is important in order to better analyze the
opportunity for improvement. There will always be some variation, but, if we
monitor it closely, we can determine if it is decreasing or increasing. Of course,
we would like for it to decrease to as low a value as possible, but we need a way
of visually reflecting variation as numbers can sometimes be deceiving based
on the magnitude of the observed values in relation to the variation. Figure 4.5
shows a common way to simply reflect variation.
The variation from the best time to the highest or longest time by itself does
not show the entire story. Therefore, often, you will see the variation that was
reflected along with the actual cycle times that were observed and recorded.
This gives us a better perspective of the variation and its magnitude compared
to the observations that were measured. An example is shown in Figure 4.6 for
a sample of 10 consecutive observations. Notice in this example that the worker
is only within the TT for 4 of the 10 cycles that were observed, so there is much
improvement to be done. This graph also shows the standard time, whether the
TT or the DCT. Sometimes, the graph may also be useful to show the average
cycle time as well.
When referring to the best time in this context, this usually refers to the low-
est time that was observed and was not considered an anomaly of some sort.
An anomaly might be that the reaction time of the person doing the time mea-
surement hit the button on the stopwatch too early or too late, and this caused
a reading that was too low. It is pretty obvious that some error or variation can
be introduced since we are depending on human senses and reaction times to
take the time measurements. If, for some reason, the person taking the measure-
ments reacts too quickly for that read point, it will capture too short of a time.

Highest time—the highest time observed during

the observations under the latest
Variation conditions in the work area

Best time—the lowest or best time observed that

was considered valid under the latest
conditions in the work area

Figure 4.5  Variation is the difference between the highest and the lowest cycle times.
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  47

16
15
14
13
12
Time in seconds 11
10

+3.5
Average
9
8 Takt
7
6
11
5 10 9.5 9.5

Best = 7.5
9 8.5 9
4 7.5 8 8
3
2
1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Observation #

Figure 4.6  Variation is often shown on a graph of observed cycle times.

However, if he or she reacts too slowly to the read point preceding the read
point under question, it will also have the same result. Therefore, we must strive
to minimize the variation that is introduced due to reaction time by the person
taking the time measurements.
As we have already discussed earlier in this section, the reaction time varia-
tion can be reduced somewhat by applying the concept of standardization—for
example, we can try to find a cue that corresponds to the start/stop point as
described earlier, but that is very distinctive and hard to miss each time that it
occurs. This increases in importance the smaller the time increments that are
measured become; therefore, it is vital that we document the way that we do
our observation and measurements so that they can be duplicated in the future.
Also, note that this method requires us to record the times that were recalled
from memory. Although it is not absolutely necessary, we prefer to use a simple
prepared table to record the information so that our information is organized and
easily understood by others. If the prepared table is organized properly, recall-
ing the data is very easy. However, as the number of data points increases, the
opportunity to make an error when recalling the memories also increases. Also,
as the length of the time intervals becomes shorter, the opportunity for mistakes
becomes higher. It is for this reason that we prefer to make a prepared form
before we start an observation. It causes us to think deeper about what we are
doing so that we can set up the form correctly, which then helps us keep the
data organized when we recall them from the stopwatch memories. This next
method is actually a variation of the one that we have just been discussing with
the exception that there are more data points to capture.
48  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Memory Stopwatch Method #2

There are other ways that the memory stopwatch can be used that are of interest
to us. We know that by using this type of stopwatch, we can measure consecu-
tive time intervals for an observed event, but we are not limited to just full cycles
(or laps)—we can measure individual work components at the stations as well.
We are only limited by the number of memories that are available in the stop-
watch and our ability to recognize and react to the various start/stop points that
separate all the work components. Total cycle times are still available for com-
parison to the DCT or TT, and the totals can also be used in the same manner as
the previous method. However, as we continue our search for ways to improve
our operation, we start to look even deeper and find that the next level down
from individual full cycles is made up of the work times at each station and the
walk times between them. See Figure 4.7.
This method, although very powerful, is a bit more complicated. In the
previous method, all that was required was that we watch for a single event—
the single start/stop point that occurred once each cycle. In this method, there
are several start/stop points, and they occur multiple times each cycle. Notice
that the stop point of one component is the start point of the next successive
one. In our truck example, recall that we have five work components (for the
five stations); then there are five walk components—to get from one station
to the next until completion when we return to the first station. So, instead of
one time for a full cycle, there are 10 component times. At this point, we start
to see the concern for the number of lap memories that are available as they
will determine the maximum number of full cycles that this technique can
accommodate.
We see now that there are 10 start/stop read points for each full cycle that is
captured and that it is necessary to define these points so that we can recognize
them easily when they occur. As described in the “Variation” section, the shorter
the time intervals being measured, the more distinct the cues must be to improve
reaction time. Also, note that since the start point of the next component is the
stop point of the previous one, then the stop point of the very last component
Walk time to station 2

Walk time to station 3

Walk time to station 4

Walk time to station 5

Walk time back to

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at
station 1

station 2

station 3

station 4

station 5

station 1

Total cycle time is equal to sum of all the work components.

Figure 4.7  A complete cycle is made up of all the work components.

 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  49

Walk time to station 2

Walk time to station 3

Walk time to station 4

Walk time to station 5

Walk time back to

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at

Work time at
station 1

station 2

station 3

station 4

station 5

station 1
Figure 4.8  Component start/stop points—return to start to complete last cycle.

still includes returning to the start point and actuating the stop button on the
stopwatch instead of the lap button (as if another cycle was starting). One way
to quickly understand this is to consider a single complete cycle—the last com-
ponent is not complete until the worker walks back to station 1 and performs an
action as if starting the next part, but we stop the accumulation of time rather
than use the lap button. See Figure 4.8.
This method can be described as follows.

As we did in the memory stopwatch method #1, we must choose a good place
in the process to use as the start/stop read point for actuating the button that
starts the accumulation of time. In both of the previous methods, the start/stop
read points were the same place in the cycle. However, in this technique, there
are many different points to be chosen. This makes things a bit more compli-
cated, and choosing the correct cues can prove difficult. Often, this method takes
a few practice runs in order to get things situated properly.

After we have selected the proper cues for our read points, we can begin the
timing of the observation. We start the timing on the memory stopwatch in the
same way as we do in the memory stopwatch method #1.
50  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

In this method, while the stopwatch continues to accumulate time, observe for
each successive read point. Remember that there are many different read points
and cues to be on the alert for, and therefore it is important to avoid distractions­
while observing the work. Each time we observe the cue of a read point, we
actuate the appropriate button that stores the time interval into memory. This
step is similar to the memory stopwatch method #1 with the exception that there
are more read points to capture in memory.

As with both the previous methods, when we are ready to stop timing, we must
align our stopping point to ensure that the last cycle (or read point) is captured.
Once this read point is reached, the timing on the stopwatch is stopped by pressing
the appropriate button on your model of stopwatch. The last time interval is also
stored into one of the memories. If we accidentally press the lap button again, the
time interval is captured, but the total time continues to accumulate.

When the timing is complete, we recall and record the memories in a pre-
pared form that is designed for this purpose. In this method, the contents of each
memory correspond to the time for a particular work component, stored in the
sequence that is observed. We believe that it is a good idea to record the infor-
mation from our improvement efforts so that we can understand the conditions
of the observation as well as the techniques that are used. And, it is always a
good idea to do so for this method in order to ensure that we do not accidentally
clear the memories before we are finished. Therefore, a prepared form is almost
a necessity for this method.
We can summarize the memory stopwatch method #2 into five steps as follows:

1. Choose the read points for measurement.

2. Start timing on the stopwatch at the correct start point in the work cycle.
3. Actuate the split/lap button for every read point except for the last one.
4. When the stop point occurs on completion of the last cycle, stop timing on
the stopwatch.
5. Recall and record the work component times in a prepared form.

This last step in this method brings up our next issue for discussion. In our
simple stopwatch method, we only had to recognize two points in the timed
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  51

event to actuate the buttons on the stopwatch—the beginning of the first cycle
and the very end of the last one. In the memory stopwatch method #1, we had
to recognize multiple points: the beginning of the first cycle and then one point
for each full cycle in the observation sample. In the memory stopwatch method
#2, we still start with the beginning point of the first cycle, but this time we must
recognize multiple read points during each complete cycle before finally ending
with the completion of the last cycle (or read point). In our ongoing truck exam-
ple, if we want to measure 10 complete cycles, this means that we will need a
stopwatch with at least 100 memories (10 cycles × 10 components for each cycle).
And, once we are finished capturing the work component times in our observa-
tion sample, we will need to retrieve the time components in the correct order so
that we can analyze the results. This is a really good place for a prepared form.
The form can help us to keep our data organized accurately—there are 100 dif-
ferent time measurements in this case. However, at this point, we can start to see
the advantages of a prepared form from a spreadsheet over a hand-sketched one.
Consider Figures 4.9 and 4.10.
In this more complex prepared form, we can still describe what it is we are
measuring, but, now, defining the starting and stopping read points becomes
critical since we will be watching for many more different events to occur. Our
reaction time is going to be very important as well since the read points will be
occurring much more frequently than in our previous methods. Also, note that
as the data are recalled, it is crucial that they are entered into the correct loca-
tion in the observation section. Otherwise, the component times will be in the
wrong place, and any analysis would be useless. This is why a prepared form
can be very helpful. Upon deeper reflection, we realize that the data in this case
will produce a 10-by-10 array. How the prepared form is constructed determines

Figure 4.9  Hand-sketched prepared form can get very complex and is difficult to change.
52  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Read points Observations

Row Row Lowest
# Description Starting Ending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 total average time

10
Total each column
to get OCT
CThigh = ____ ; CTlow = ____

Variation = ____ − ____ = ____ (V)

Figure 4.10  Spreadsheet form is easy to change and can be expanded.

how the data should be entered as they are recalled from the memories in the
stopwatch. In our example form, we have set it up to enter the data starting at
the top of the first column in the observation section and then enter the data
point into the box immediately below it until we reach row 10. Once the box on
row 10 is used, we begin again on the first box of the next column, as shown in
Figure 4.11. If we did everything correctly, we will finish with the box on row
10 column 10. If we did not, we should start the recall process over with either
a new form or after we have erased the data in the observation section. For this
reason, we highly recommend using a pencil with an eraser.
Notice on our prepared form that each row corresponds to a work component
for a complete cycle. Figure 4.11 also shows that there are places for the totals

Read points Observations

Row Row Lowest
# Description Starting Ending 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 total average time

10
Total each column
to get OCT

CThigh = ____ ; CTlow = ____

Variation = ____ − ____ = ____ (V)

Figure 4.11  It is important to understand how the data are entered into the form.
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  53

of both rows and columns. If we enter the total of the data that were entered
in each row in the column called “Total,” we can then calculate an average for
that component by dividing the total by the number of observations that were
entered—in our example, this is 10. If we then total the data that were entered in
each column in the boxes below row 10, we get the total time for each complete
cycle. Note that we can also get a total of the average times for each component.
Some people like to use this as a DCT value.

Summary of the Three Stopwatch Methods

We have gone through the three main stopwatch methods rather quickly. This is
probably a good point to compare them together in order to more easily under-
stand the basic differences. Figure 4.12 illustrates the main similarities and differ-
ences between the three methods.
Notice that all three use the same points to start and stop the total accumu-
lation of time during an observation. In the simple stopwatch method, we can
only calculate the average time per cycle. In some cases, this is sufficient. In the
memory stopwatch method #1, we use the lap memory feature of the stopwatch
in order to capture the individual cycle times during the observation. According
to the number of memories involved, it is often useful to utilize a prepared form
for recording the data upon recall. And, finally, in the memory stopwatch method
54  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Start on beginning of first cycle and end on last complete cycle. Next, find the
average cycle time by dividing total time by number of completed cycles.
Simple
stopwatch Start Stop
method

Start on beginning of first cycle and end on last complete cycle. Then, press lap
button at end of each interim cycle and then stop button at end of last cycle.
Next, recall time per each cycle and record into a prepared form if needed.
Memory
stopwatch Start Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Stop
method #1

Start on beginning of first cycle and end on last complete cycle. Then press lap
button at end of each interim work component and then stop button at end of
last work component of last cycle. Next, recall time per each work component
and record into a prepared form to keep data organized.

Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Stop
Memory
stopwatch Start Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap Lap
method #2

Figure 4.12  Comparison of the three stopwatch methods.

#2, we use the lap memory feature a little differently in order to capture the
work component times instead of just the individual cycle times. This method
almost always requires a prepared form in order to recall and record the data
in the proper sequence. Once the data are recalled, the components can still be
added together in order to determine the individual cycle times.
 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  55

Food for Thought

In the “Stopwatches” section, we mentioned a method that is called lowest repeat-
able. Some people prefer to use the lowest entry for a component that appears to
repeat in the data that were gathered in the observations. However, sometimes,
the data do not repeat within the small number of particular work components
that we are able to accumulate due to the number of lap memories that are avail-
able. Even if we use a stopwatch with several hundred lap memories, gathering
and keeping this amount of data organized can get extremely tedious and time
consuming—a sometimes seemingly impossible feat.
However, there are other ways that we have seen that are used for choosing
numbers to utilize in situations like this. Some will just select the lowest time that
is observed. The idea is that this is the best time that is observed and represents
a target that has been demonstrated at least once before. We do not prefer this
method for fairly short work component times since errors in reaction times can
greatly impact values in this technique. If the numbers are larger, slight variations
in reaction time to activate the stopwatch buttons have much less of an impact
on the values, and this technique can be quite reliable. If we were going to use
this technique with the prepared form in our previous examples, we could simply
circle the best time in each row, and the sum of these would represent a theoreti-
cal target that is made up of the best times for each component. However, we
must bear in mind that a technique like this yields a total that has not been dem-
onstrated in real life. It is just a way of coming up with a theoretical target time.
56  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

There are probably many more techniques that can be used to try and deter-
mine a suitable DCT. However, we do not prefer to use the more elaborate or
complex techniques. In most instances, we have found that the simple techniques
will usually suffice. TT is the target that is of interest for day-to-day operation.
The DCT is something that we prefer to use for continuous improvement pur-
poses to represent our baseline for making improvements on individual worker
jobs or workstations. It is this latter case that leads to one last technique that we
would like to discuss.
As we learn to think deeper about the various work components that make
up the worker’s job in a work cell, we begin to see that it is often necessary to
select a particular workstation upon which to focus our improvement efforts. The
second lap stopwatch method can help us with this as well if the component
times are not too short for our reaction time. Suppose that we wanted to break
down the work components of an individual workstation in a work cell. We
would still identify the appropriate start/stop read points like before, with two
main ways of approach. In either approach, we need to recognize that we are
not interested in the times for the other stations. In the first approach, we will
need a stopwatch that has a feature to stop accumulating time until the worker
returns to the station where the timing can continue again—a task that can be
extremely difficult and prone to errors. The second approach is much easier; we
can simply allow time to accumulate between successive instances of the worker
returning to the selected station and have our prepared form account for an accu-
mulated time so that this time can be recorded on the prepared form but then
filtered out of our analysis.

Some Other Information on the SWC

Before we move on from our discussion on the SWC, it is important to note
some other information that is often found on it. We know that there is a visual
aspect to the SWC as the layout sketch is the central focus of this standardized
work tool. Another visual component that is often found here are some simple
symbols. These symbols denote things such as safety issues for the worker, qual-
ity checkpoints, and places where parts should be (or sometimes should not be)
during the cycle. Figure 4.13 shows some typical symbols.
Other information sometimes found on an SWC includes things like the
name of the operation or job, the last revision information, the person who cre-
ated it and/or who last modified it, and other information that is useful for the

Standard in-process stock Hand-off point

Quality check Safety issue

Figure 4.13  Some common symbols used on an SWC.

 Standardized Work Chart  ◾  57

organization. We even prefer to list all the tasks somewhere on the SWC as well
since, in real life, the worker is often required to perform some tasks on demand
as needed in addition to the cell work. We discussed this at some length in New
Horizons in Standardized Work (Martin and Bell 2011, pp. 37–46).
Chapter 5

Questions for Standardized

Work Chart Review

Introduction

In Chapter 4, we learned about the standardized work chart (SWC) and how it
can help us better understand the relationship between the geographic layout
of the process steps and the impact that this can have upon the various work
components as well as our customer’s requirements. During this time, it was also
necessary to learn about how a standard time, whether takt time (TT) or desired
cycle time (DCT), was necessary to use as a basis for comparison in order to
determine if we were indeed making progress in our continuous improvement
efforts. It is entirely possible that some of our improvement ideas could actually

59
60  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

make things worse, so the standard time is used to serve as a point of reference
to not only reduce variation but also serve as our basis for evaluating whether we
are improving or not. We also discovered that in order to measure the observed
cycle times (OCTs), the two basic types of stopwatches both had methods that
would allow us to use their capabilities for our improvement efforts.
However, to effectively use the two basic types of stopwatches, it was nec-
essary that we understand how to break the work cycles into measurable time
components. In some cases, this was simply complete cycles, whereas, in others,
it was various components of the work cycle—whether it was work, walk, wait,
or machine time. We also learned that variation was another issue that arises
once we start looking deeper into the various work components. And, finally,
we learned that in order to reduce the chances for error, it is extremely helpful
to plan ahead and prepare a table or form to help keep the numerous measure-
ments organized for accurate analysis. Next, we will work through some exer-
cises and questions based on the material in Chapter 4.

Question 1: Calculate the TT for a customer demand of 150 parts per day.

Given

1. Production is scheduled for one shift per day.

2. The workday is 8 hours.
3. There is a 10-minute huddle meeting at the beginning of the shift.
4. There are two 10-minute breaks per shift: one in the morning and one in
the afternoon.

Remember: 1 hour = 60 minutes

Use the answer area for question 1 for your answer.

It is possible that we could be presented with a different version of the above

problem. In some cases, we may have a work cell that produces different models
of a product or even many different products. This is a very common occurrence in
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  61

low-volume but high-mix scenarios. The processes may be the same, but the work
content varies based on the process characteristics such as labor that is required,
machine time, the number of components, and so on. When a new model or ver-
sion is introduced, it is sometimes necessary to work backwards to determine the
TT or the DCT based on the amount of work content that was estimated in the
design phase or measured in a prototype environment. Regardless of how the work
content was determined or estimated, it does occur quite often, and we should be
prepared to deal with a situation that is similar to the following question.

Question 2: To produce a part for the customer, it takes 10 minutes of total

work time. If the customer TT is 3 minutes per part, what would be the required
minimum number of workers to meet the customer takt?

Hint: Round up to the nearest number of workers.

Use the answer area for question 2 for your answer.

62  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 3: (True or false) In referring to question 2, all four workers do not

have to have a DCT that is equal to or less than 3 minutes per part to complete
to meet the customer demand.
Use the answer area for question 3 for your answer.

Question 4: (True or false) The read points for establishing the cycle begin-
ning and cycle ending can be visual cues as well as sound cues.
Use the answer area for question 4 for your answer.

Question 5: In using the simple stopwatch method, you have observed

30 cycles for a total of 900 seconds. What is the average cycle time in seconds?
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  63

Use the answer area for question 5 for your answer.

Question 6: (True or false) It is very important to accurately record the number of

observations that were taken over the accumulated time of a simple stopwatch study.
Use the answer area for question 6 for your answer.

Question 7: For a memory stopwatch, how many memories would be required

to capture 10 individual observed cycles?
Use the answer area for question 7 for your answer.

Question 8: (True or false) The memory stopwatch method #1 can more accu-
rately capture variation from cycle to cycle as compared to the simple stopwatch
method.
Use the answer area for question 8 for your answer.
64  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 9: How many full cycles can we capture from the example in shown
in the work component breakdown for question 9 using the memory stopwatch
method #2 with a stopwatch that has 100 memories?

Use the answer area for question 9 for your answer.

 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  65

Question 10a: Complete the example observation form for question 10a.

Question 10b: Where are the best opportunities to improve the work
components?
66  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Hint: Compare work component averages to the lowest repeatable times.

Use the answer area for question 10b for your answer.

Question 10c: Will your opportunities for improvement meet the TT shown on
the example SWC for question 10c?

Use the answer area for question 10c for your answer.
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  67

Question 10d: Draw a bar graph reflecting the individual cycles, the best time
that was observed as a target with the variation that is shown, and, finally, add
a line that shows the average cycle time using the values from the table in this
example.

Hint: The best time is the lowest OCT in this case.

Use the answer area for question 10d for your answer.
68  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Answers for SWC Questions

 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  69

Question 1: Calculate the TT for a customer demand of 150 parts per day.

Given
1. Production is scheduled for one shift per day.
2. The workday is 8 hours.
3. There is a 10-minute huddle meeting at the beginning of the shift.
4. There are two 10-minute breaks per shift: one in the morning and one in
the afternoon.

Remember: 1 hour = 60 minutes

See answer for question 1.

Question 2: To produce a part for the customer, it takes 10 minutes of total

work time. If the customer TT is 3 minutes per part, what would be the required
minimum number of workers to meet the customer takt?
70  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Hint: Round up to the nearest number of workers.

See answer for question 2.

In this last example, we are faced with a situation that calls for a number
of workers that would be difficult to acquire. There are several options that
could be pursued, each of which would make for a fairly enlightening exercise.
However, the intent is not to learn how to match labor with work but rather how
to strive for continuous improvement. This exercise should help us recognize that
there may be opportunities for improvement that would reduce the total work
time to allow us to eventually get down to three workers.

Question 3: (True or false) In referring to question 2, all four workers do not

have to have a DCT that is equal to or less than 3 minutes per part to complete
to meet the customer demand.

See answer for question 3.

 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  71

Question 4: (True or false) The read points for establishing the cycle begin-
ning and cycle ending can be visual cues as well as sound cues.

See answer for question 4.

Question 5: In using the simple stopwatch method, you have observed 30

cycles for a total of 900 seconds. What is the average cycle time in seconds?

See answer for question 5.

Question 6: (True or false) It is very important to accurately record the number

of observations that were taken over the accumulated time of a simple stopwatch
study.
72  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

See answer for question 6.

In this last question, even though an error would result, the impact of that
error is inversely proportional to the total number of cycles in the observation.
In other words, the fewer the number of total cycles, the greater the impact
the error would have on the average, and the higher the number, the lesser the
impact. However, this is not meant to imply that error is acceptable, only that this
should be taken into account when analyzing the situation.

Question 7: For a memory stopwatch, how many memories would be required

to capture 10 individual observed cycles?

See answer for question 7.

This last question is pretty straightforward; the number of memories in a

stopwatch with the lap memory feature determine how many measurements you
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  73

can store before having to stop and recall the data from the memories. It does
not matter whether they are complete cycles or individual work components. It
is important to note that when using the simple stopwatch method, there are no
memories, and only one time can be captured per observation.

Question 8: (True or false) The memory stopwatch method #1 can more accu-
rately capture variation from cycle to cycle as compared to the simple stopwatch
method.

See answer for question 8.

The memory stopwatch method #1 will capture each completed work cycle
time in an observation allowing us to understand the variation between individ-
ual cycles. This is in contrast to the simple stopwatch method, which only allows
us to calculate an average cycle time for an observation and will spread any
cycle-to-cycle variation across all cycles. There are definite advantages in being
able to measure cycle-to-cycle variation. Although identifying some of these
advantages would serve as a very good exercise question, our intent is not to
justify the memory stopwatch methods but rather to learn to use them in pursuit
of continuous improvement.

Question 9: How many full cycles can we capture from the example shown
in the work component breakdown for question 9 using the memory stopwatch
method #2 with a stopwatch that has 100 memories?

See the read points for the work component breakdown and answer for ques-
tion 9.
74  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 10a: Complete the example observation form for question 10a.

See the completed observation form for question 10a (completed values circled
in red).

Question 10b: Where are the best opportunities to improve the work
components?

Hint: Compare work component averages to the lowest repeatable times.

See observation form containing the lowest repeatable values for the work ele-
ments (completed values circled in red) and the answer for question 10b.
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  75

In question 10b, we compared the work component averages to the lowest

repeatable values that were observed. Sometimes, there may be no clearly repeat-
able value, so this does not always prove to be as easy as the example table. In
such cases, there are other techniques for choosing a target value for each com-
ponent. If we think deeper and try to develop a list of possible alternative ways,
we would have another good exercise question. But, again, this is not the point.
What is important is that we might want to define a target value for each of the
work components for our improvement efforts, and the value that is selected
should be a fairly accurate reflection of the typical time. Some people choose to
use the lowest value that is observed for each component as they feel that this
represents the best time that was observed. However, this is not without its own
issues to consider. Notice that the walk times were not discussed in this question.
In this particular example, there was not a significant amount of variation in the
walk times. Although there certainly may be an opportunity to improve them
as well, the current variation is so small that it could easily be caused by user
error operating the stopwatch during observation and recording. This could also
be used as an argument against using the best or lowest value unless it had also
shown that it is repeatable.
76  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 10c: Will your opportunities for improvement meet the TT shown on
the example SWC for question 10c?

See answer for question 10c.

Question 10d: Draw a bar graph reflecting the individual cycles, the best time
observed as a target with variation that is shown, and, finally, add a line that
shows the average cycle time using the values from the table in this example.

Hint: The best time is the lowest OCT in this case.

See graph showing OCTs and variation for question 10d.

Using simple graphs can help us look for even more opportunities to
improve. In this last example, we see that even within 10 consecutive worker
cycles, there is over 2 seconds of variation. We know that some variation is
inevitable, but that does not mean that we do not continue to try to eliminate
it. Striving for perfection, even though we know that we can never completely
achieve it, is an important driving force in the continuous improvement mindset.
It is one of the things that keep us looking for a better way. In this last example,
 Questions for Standardized Work Chart Review  ◾  77

we also notice that the best time of 35.7 seconds shows up twice in only 10
consecutive cycles, which is an indicator that it might not have been due to an
error in measurement. We can continue to look for eliminating the cause of the
variation between cycles, even while looking for other improvements such as
reduction in the walk time.
Chapter 6

Work Combination Table:
Where Time and (Work)
Space Collide

Introduction

We learned in Chapters 4 and 5 about the standardized work chart, where it

became clear that we are building upon the idea of continuous improvement. We
will continue along this path as we learn about how we can tie all of the work
components together and find even more ways to reveal more problems and
issues with the worker’s job in a work cell.

79
80  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

In this section, we will learn how to develop and use the work combina-
tion table (WCT), which allows us to take the work components and put them
together in a diagram that helps us see the entire work cycle from beginning
to end along with the interaction of any machine cycle times. We now know
that after the standardized work has been defined, the next step is to use the
standardized work tools to begin the kaizen process. When dealing with repeti-
tive tasks involving a combination of work, walk, wait, and/or machine times, a
WCT is a very powerful tool for evaluating improvement opportunities. It pro-
vides a visual depiction of the relationship between individual tasks in the work
sequence, the cycle time of the machines that are involved, and the target stan-
dard, usually takt time (TT) or the desired cycle time (DCT).
Although the WCT is a good tool to help identify and quantify opportunities
for improvement, it can also be a useful tool when performing a detailed analy-
sis on changeovers, machine cycles, or just manual work sequences in general.
It can be used as a tool to analyze any repeatable sequence. Although the name
implies that it shows the combination of the work between man and machine,
it can be used for improvement efforts of repeatable work elements as well.
Examples include product changeovers, delivery routes, or even administrative
tasks. The left side of the WCT contains the work elements and times in a table
format. The right side contains a graphic representation of those elements as
they relate to the geographic layout. In essence, the WCT truly represents a place
where time and (work) space collide.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  81

Before we start looking at how to go about creating a WCT, we should

pause for a moment and consider that many Lean concepts, principles,
and tools are not always obvious or intuitive. There are quite a few people
who think that many Lean methods are unorthodox at best and downright
detrimental at worst. Hopefully, this chapter will help people better under-
stand how powerful the WCT can be when accurately created and properly
used.
In order to create a WCT, we must first observe the process sufficiently
to get a good understanding of how the work elements and machine time(s)
interact. Once the relationship of the elements is understood, it is necessary
to measure all the components next so that the combination of elements can
be documented and graphed on the WCT tool, taking care to ensure that all
of the problems are shown as well. After an accurate representation is cap-
tured, this model can then be used to analyze the process so that opportuni-
ties for improvement can be considered. If the problems are not captured and
shown properly, it will greatly impact the analysis and the effectiveness of the
improvements that are evaluated. Fortunately, the tools and methods we have
learned in Chapters 1 through 5 will help provide the information that we need
to build a WCT.
82  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

How-To: WCT

A WCT begins with the creation of a reasonably accurate layout sketch of the
work flow. As we learned in Chapters 2 and 3, in order to create an accurate
 Work Combination Table  ◾  83

Figure 6.1  Sketch the geographic layout of the work area.

layout sketch, it is important to understand the geographical perspective of the

equipment and its relationship with the sequence of the work flow. We first draw
a sketch that represents the geographic layout of the work area. Next, using a
number inside of a circle, label each process step location in the work sequence
as it is performed even if the worker must walk back and forth or even retrace
steps. Then, use arrows to show movement from one location to another—solid
line arrows for the steps that are internal to the sequence and a dashed line
arrow to show when the operator has completed an entire cycle and is about to
start the next complete cycle. Refer to Figure 6.1.

Once the layout sketch is complete, the next step is to observe the work as it
occurs. During this observation, it is necessary to identify all the relevant work
elements so that they can be measured. In most instances, these work elements
will be composed of work, walk, and/or wait by the worker, plus any applicable
machine time at each work step. It often helps to take a piece of scrap paper and
make a rough graph to help visualize the relevant work elements for the process
being observed. In our example, the worker performs some work at step 1, then
walks to step 2 where some additional work is performed, and walks on to con-
tinue the cycle at step 3, while the machine at step 2 performs its automatic cycle
and so on through step 5 and then returns to step 1 where the cycle repeats.
Refer to Figure 6.2.
84  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.2  Sketch rough graph based on layout.

As we learned in Chapters 4 and 5, once a rough graph is made, we look for the
points that define the separation of each work element. Fortunately, the machine
time is relatively simple and can be captured separately from the work elements.
However, in order to clearly define the start and stop points of each work element,
we need some recurring recognizable reference point that our senses can readily
distinguish. Once these work elements are captured using the predefined start/stop
points, we transfer them from the stopwatch memory to a table (such as the example
that is shown in Figure 6.3), usually a simple form that is made for this purpose.

Figure 6.3  Identify work element start/stop points and capture times.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  85

Since there will be variation, we must determine which work element times to
use—using whatever method seems most appropriate. Totaling these work element
times results in the DCT, or what we reasonably expect to achieve each cycle under
normal conditions. Recall that the DCT is not the same as the TT, which is based
on customer requirements under our chosen operating conditions. If the DCT is
not sufficient to meet customer requirements, then steps must be taken to reconcile
this problem. For example, the short term might be to add additional work hours,
whereas, in the long term, we would definitely be relying on kaizen.

After selecting the work element times to use from our measurements, using a
WCT form, enter the following work element details into the table:

◾◾ Step number. (The sequence should match the geographic layout of the
worker path rather than the work sequence—see the examples that follow.)
◾◾ Work element name or description of the work to be performed at that step.
◾◾ Manual time that the worker spends at the location (as previously selected).
◾◾ Machine cycle time that occurs (where applicable).
◾◾ Walk time to the next step in the work sequence—notice in the table in
Figure 6.4 that the walk time is positioned such as to show the beginning
and ending steps for that particular walk. (Again, use the times that were
previously selected.)
◾◾ Enter the total manual work time and total walk time at the bottom of the
table as shown; If there is any forced wait time, enter that at the bottom of
the table as well—notice that, if done correctly, the sum of these three val-
ues will equal the DCT. (Refer to Figure 6.4.)

Next, sketch the combination of the operator and machine work as a graph
using the work element times from the table. Also, show the expected DCT or
the TT when applicable, with vertical lines. Walking is usually shown as a wavy
line and machine time as a dashed line. Also, note that if there is any forced
wait, it is denoted using a double arrow. The comparison of the graph to the left-
side data table is shown in Figure 6.5.
It is important to note that there are some cases where the DCT is more rel-
evant than the TT, for example, a very long machine changeover. In the change-
over, the TT might not apply, but certainly a standard time would—hence the
term desired cycle time. In either case, the standard time should be drawn on the
86  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.4  Left side of WCT contains the elements and times.

Figure 6.5  Create WCT graph on right side using data from left side.

graph as a red vertical line to denote its importance. In the example in Figure
6.5, the operator cycle is less than the customer TT, which causes a forced wait
before the next cycle can begin, and we can see that the system needs improve-
ment. When there is machine time that when drawn would intersect the standard
time, the machine cycle dashed line must stop at the red line, and the remainder
is wrapped around and shown on the leftmost portion of the graph, as shown in
Figure 6.6. (The machine time wraps where the cycle begins to repeat.)
 Work Combination Table  ◾  87

Figure 6.6  Machine times not complete at red line should wrap around.

Another important issue to consider is when there is work that is performed

simultaneously while walking. In these cases, the work is not cumulative since
it occurs during the time that is already being counted as walking. However, it
is still important to graph this correctly so that the condition is not overlooked,
and all the work elements are captured. The examples in Figure 6.7 show how
to document conditions for work that is less than 1 second as well as 1 second
or greater. Note that the time entered in the table is in parentheses to show that
it is excluded in the total work time. This condition is also one of the times
when work elements become difficult to measure since we have two elements
occurring at the same time. In this case, we must exclude the work time and
proceed as if it did not occur. Once the other element times are chosen and
entered, and the totals (excluding the work while walking time) are calculated
at the bottom of the table, then this work time can be entered and enclosed in
parentheses.

Although a WCT can be drawn freehand on a blank sheet of paper as we

have seen, typically, a form is used for making the graph to scale, which helps
organize the information for further analysis. Notice that the graph on the
88  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.7  Examples of WCT work while walking.

right-hand side is much easier to read, and opportunities for improvement can be
quantified much more clearly. Refer to Figure 6.8.
As we have learned, the WCT is a tool for kaizen. One source of clues in our
search for potential improvement possibilities is in the appearance of the work
element graphic. When analyzing a WCT, there are some common questions that
often arise. Referring to Figure 6.9, although the following table does not repre-
sent all the questions that might be important, we can commonly use them as
starting points in our efforts to identify problems and opportunities. Note that
the observed cycle time (OCT) refers to a sample worker cycle that was actually
observed and measured.
As we consider the starting point questions for our example, we will notice
that the double-ended arrow on the right side of the graphic indicates that
the worker is forced to wait after returning to step 1 at the end of the process
cycle—because a part is not yet available at the conveyor coming from the feed-
ing process. At the bottom of the WCT, it shows that this forced wait is 9 sec-
onds. Even though the worker completed the cycle in 61 seconds, a part is not
available at the conveyor pickup point to begin the next cycle until 9 seconds
 Work Combination Table  ◾  89

Figure 6.8  Observe, measure, and document accurately.

Figure 6.9  Some starting questions for analysis of WCT.

90  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.10  Analyze for opportunities.

later forcing the worker to wait and causing the total cycle to be 70 seconds.
In this case, 70 seconds happens to be TT, although we can plainly see what
appears to be an opportunity to beat this target, as pointed out in Figure 6.10.
Accurately portraying the problems on the WCT allows us to search out and
quantify such opportunities.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  91

Figure 6.11  Example of WCT with OCT = TT.

Meanwhile, Here in the Work (Real) World

It is critical that the WCT illustrate the problems accurately before the analysis is
started; otherwise, they cannot be correctly studied. But, before we consider the
following examples and the common problems that they reflect, we should be
familiar with what a normal WCT graph might look like (see Figure 6.11). Notice
that the solid lines denoting manual work somewhat resemble a set of stairs.
The downward stair-step pattern indicates that the worker continues in the same
direction as when the cycle started. If the steps make an upward pattern, this
indicates that the worker is going toward a location that he or she has passed
by or has been to previously during that particular cycle—such as returning to
a previous station or most notably where the order of process steps does not
reflect the geographic order of the workstations. And, we have learned that the
machine cycle time breaks at the TT or DCT target line and then sort of wraps
around from the vertical line on the left side. This represents the machine time
from the previous cycle.

Real-World Problem: OCT > TT

When the OCT is greater than the standard time, as shown in Figure 6.12, it
is obvious that the worker will not be able to meet the customer requirements
if the observed cycle is not just an anomaly. This is one of the most common
problems that are encountered in real life. To resolve this problem, it is necessary
to increase the time that is available for the work (thereby increasing the TT) or
reduce the work element times through kaizen (preferred).
92  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.12  Example of WCT with OCT > TT.

 Work Combination Table  ◾  93

Real-World Problem: OCT < TT

(and Forced Wait at End of Work Cycle)
When the OCT is shorter than the customer requirement (TT), the worker is
going to overproduce. Under normal conditions, if the work cycle is shorter than
needed, it is necessary to decrease the time that is available for the work (thereby
decreasing the TT) or add forced wait at the end of the work cycle to eliminate
the opportunity to overproduce. The latter condition may not be sustainable over
time and usually results in overproduction or a decrease in the work pace (which
is difficult to resolve). However, there are some instances in real life where the
worker is forced to wait before beginning their next cycle due to the availability
of a part or the completion of a machine cycle. An example of waiting on a part
before starting the next cycle is shown in Figure 6.13. In either case, kaizen is
necessary in order to eliminate the waiting.

Real-World Problem: Forced Wait during Work Cycle

In the previous example, we saw forced wait at the end of the work cycle.
Sometimes, forced wait occurs during the work cycle. A common example of this
problem happens when a machine cycle from the previous worker cycle has not
been completed by the time that the worker arrives back at the workstation of
that particular machine. In this case, the worker must pause until the machine
cycle is complete. An example is shown in Figure 6.14.

Figure 6.13  Example of WCT with OCT < TT.

94  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.14  Example of WCT with wait during worker cycle.

Real-World Problem: Showing Work Elements

with No Walk between Them
In some instances, it may be necessary or desirable to break down the work ele-
ments at a location when there is no walking connecting the steps. This is shown
as a vertical line, and the steps are numbered as shown to identify that they are
part of a single larger work element. Refer to Figure 6.15.

Figure 6.15  Example of WCT with walk = zero.

 Work Combination Table  ◾  95

A Dose of Reality: Some Problems Are Much More Serious

The real-world issues and problems up to this point have been pretty simple to
work around. However, as we know, the real (work) world is not so easy. We
do not always have the luxury of being able to do things the ideal way. Often,
we are faced with real-world obstacles that may not be economically feasible to
­overcome—we may not have the money for the ideal equipment, the floor
space for the ideal layout, the ideal sequence of process steps between different
products/services, or the ideal work/machine cycle time balance for labor optimi-
zation. But, if we let that stop us, we may not be competitive in the real world.
So, even though the standardized work may not be ideal, it is still very important
to accurately and thoroughly document it—and especially the problems—so that
we can evaluate future kaizen opportunities.
96  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Real-World Problem: Work Sequence

Does Not Match Geographic Sequence
When the work sequence and the physical location do not match up, the worker
may actually walk back and forth over the same ground during a cycle. If this
is not documented properly, the WCT will not illustrate the problem accurately.
In Figure 6.16, the example used earlier on how to create a WCT has had the
work sequence changed. Now, the operator must go to the grind process before
the mill process. If the work sequence was simply graphed on the WCT with no
regard for location, the resulting table would have appeared no different from
the original example. Notice how the WCT graph now shows the back-and-forth
movement of the work sequence.

Real-World Problem: Worker Returns

to Same Location during Cycle
Sometimes, a worker must return to a location before the completion of a cycle.
In such cases, the different steps should be grouped together as a single geo-
graphic zone. This complicates the WCT so that the data table will require mul-
tiple entries, as illustrated in Figure 6.17—notice the additional column that is
labeled “Zone.”
 Work Combination Table  ◾  97

Figure 6.16  Example of sequence ≠ geographic zones.

Figure 6.17  Return to a previous step during work cycle.

98  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Real-World Problem: Parallel Machines

Due to Excessive Machine Cycle Times #1
Some production processes require multiple machines in parallel due to a
large mismatch between the process cycle time and the customer TT. When
this occurs, the worker must load a different machine in the parallel set on
consecutive passes. In the example shown in Figure 6.18, the second step in
the work cycle is composed of two machines in parallel, and the cycle does
not repeat until two complete passes are made through the cell. This compli-
cates the WCT and often results in variation between the subsequent parts.
However, if the problems are captured correctly, we can better quantify the
benefits of the kaizen activities in order to help justify the resources that are
required.

Some Problems Seem Impossible to Resolve

If we have a solid understanding of the principles upon which Lean and, more
specifically, standardized work are based, it can be possible to head off many
problems upfront before the system is in place. However, some issues just cannot

Figure 6.18  Parallel machines causing multiple passes to complete work cycle.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  99

be avoided. Often, the main reason for many of the problems and issues high-
lighted in this chapter is the high cost of some process steps—whether based on
the high cost of equipment or of specialized skills.
In this next example, in order to try and avoid buying a sixth wire bonder
machine, the equipment team sought to utilize five wire bonders, each with dual-
part nests. These dual nests allowed for some concurrent processing on one part,
while the machine bonded the other part because the sixth machine would not
be fully utilized. This worked to some extent, but we leave it up to the readers
to decide if the final situation would have been better with six wire bonders
with single nests. Whatever your opinion on the wire bond process decision, one
thing is certain—it is very important to be able to accurately capture and docu-
ment the standardized work using a WCT when applicable.

Real-Life Example: Parallel Machines

Due to Excessive Machine Cycle Times #2
In the example in the “Parallel Machines Due to Excessive Machine Cycle
Times #1” section, it was shown that two parallel machines at the second step
complicated the process such that it required two passes to complete a work
cycle. In real life, this is an unfortunate possibility in many industries. The fol-
lowing example is derived from an actual application in the electronics industry.
100  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Only one worker’s cycle from the cell is shown for simplicity. The wire bond
machines on the right side of the figure have a cycle time that is much lon-
ger than the customer TT—so much longer in fact that with the overhead time
required to slide a nest into position, clamp the part, and then locate the numer-
ous bonding positions with the machine vision system, a sixth machine was even
considered. It was finally determined that five machines could suffice if double
nests were installed on the machines to reduce overhead time based on the cost
of another machine. The dual nest design allowed some concurrent machine
clamping and computer vision location processing to be accomplished, while the
machine bonded the part in the previously loaded nest. The detail highlights are
shown in Figure 6.19.
It is not difficult to determine the number of passes that are required before
the work cycle repeats. Five bonders with two nests each results in 10 passes.
This means that the worker will load/unload both the oven and the continuity
tester 10 times before cycling through all the wire bonder nests. We consider each
bonder as a single geographical zone, and, as a result, the completed layout sketch
appears, as shown in Figure 6.20.
Even a printed WCT form is difficult to use for this situation due to the com-
plexity that is caused by the parallel machines. Accuracy in capturing and show-
ing the problems is a critical aspect of the WCT. For this real-life example, notice
how the data table becomes quite large. In Figure 6.21, we will notice that the
left-side portion of the WCT is quite large, and, in order to even have a chance

Figure 6.19  Real-life example of multiple parallel machines.

 Work Combination Table  ◾  101

Figure 6.20  Secondary part nests increase complexity and passes required.

of showing the information in this field guide, the left side had to be broken into
two pieces and shown side by side. An important point to note with this exam-
ple as we go forward is that even though the task of capturing all the details
accurately seems nearly impossible, it is still critical that we follow through and
develop an accurate portrayal of the situation using the WCT. Otherwise, we can
miss some very important opportunities to improve.
102  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.21  WCT data table for five parallel wire bonder example is huge.

Do Not Get Hung Up: Some Rules Are More Like Guidelines
The graph portion of this WCT becomes extremely complex and problematic.
In this instance, two printed WCT forms had to be cut and taped together to be
able to capture the 10-cycle wave form. In addition, there are other problems
with capturing a complete cycle. The first is that the wavy-line technique nor-
mally used to denote walk becomes very difficult to show without distorting the

Figure 6.22  Comparison of wavy-versus-straight walk lines on complex example.

 Work Combination Table  ◾  103

view of a complete cycle. In these cases, it is best to use straight lines for the
walk. It makes the graph easier to read and allows the use of a straight edge to
ensure accuracy. A comparison is shown in Figure 6.22.

Sometimes, We Outsmart Ourselves

Another problem arises in cases with multiple machine nests, as in this example.
Notice that the machine time from the first cycle of a specific wire bonder is not
yet complete, and the machine time for the second nest would land on top of
the first nest work and machine time lines. This requires that we alter the normal
convention of plotting the same geographic region on the same line to plotting
the second nest on the next line, as shown in Figure 6.23. The second nest line is
plotted in green to highlight this fact. This causes the graph of a complete work
cycle to be even more complex.
However, if we are diligent and careful to capture the problems correctly and
accurately, the results are worthwhile. Note how the problems can easily be rec-
ognized from a visual perspective. But, now, we notice that there is considerable
part-to-part variation that is introduced by design, as shown in Figure 6.24.
The multiple machines obviously cause the worker to walk different distances,
as shown in this very complex real-life example—thus, the individual part cycle
varies from 21 to 29 seconds. However, there are other issues that contribute to
this variation. Consider that each time the worker arrives at the group of wire
bonder machines, he or she must be looking ahead and trying to judge where
104  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.23  Dual machine nests causing two plot lines for each wire bonder.

he or she will be walking to as he or she leaves the oven area. It is possible for
the worker to remember where he or she must travel to next by remembering the
location of the last pass, but this can get very complicated based on the length
and number of interruptions in between passes, which can lead to additional
variation and additional worker fatigue.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  105

Figure 6.24  Parallel machines with dual nests causing variation by design.

Some Food for Thought

The issues and problems of the previous real-life examples provide us with much
food for thought. For example, the dual nest design used was intended to prevent
having to purchase a sixth wire bonder. However, by understanding the results of
such a decision, it might not have saved that much money in the long run. Consider
that the dual nest design makes each wire bonder much more complex and adds
extra machine downtime opportunities due to the nests. There are many other
issues like this that can be investigated and analyzed. Consider also that, early on,
we indicated that this example is only a portion of a larger cell—thus, the variation
between subsequent parts in this section of the work flow will directly impact all
the other workers. This impact can be significant. The point here is that by under-
standing the impact that parallel machines and nests can have upon the output of
the assembly cell, it becomes possible to have more in-depth discussion with the
machine designers and maybe head off some of the issues before the system is
built. Significant kaizen after the fact might prove to be prohibitively expensive.
106  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

In the wire bonder example, we notice that the walk and the load/unload
times were much longer than this last example. Although it is outside the
scope of this field guide, there are several reasons for this. The work was bet-
ter designed—counterclockwise-versus-clockwise flow for one-handed loads/
unloads and the walk distances that are much less than before, to name a couple
of reasons. Yet, we still see part cycle time variation from 37 seconds for one
part to 43 seconds for the other. As indicated by the WCT, the singulation pro-
cess being a part of the cell causes a lot of this variation by design. Even though
the average part cycle time is 40 seconds, the worker must keep track of not only
the relationship of his or her work flow with the parallel machines but also the
status of the singulate and programming processes. The more complicated the
worker’s flow, the greater the variation and thus the greater chance for error. This
example required only four passes around the cell before the cycle repeats. The
four parallel machines are one rhythmic variation in the cycle. The two-piece
flow portion of the earlier process steps is another. Since one is a multiple of the
other, the smaller variation easily fits inside the larger variation.

Watch Your Step: Waste Is Everywhere

In the following example, there is an added twist to the issues and problems that
were covered so far. Often, there are definite advantages to incorporate more
process steps into the work cell or work flow in order to allow more efficient
utilization of the workers. However, in the next case, we see that some process
steps do not lend themselves to combination very well. For this next example, it
is a change in flow that results in skipping a step on alternating passes.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  107

Real-Life Example: Changing the Unit

of Flow during the Worker Cycle
Another issue that can really stand out on a properly drawn WCT is a change
in the unit of flow. In the following real-life example, a 2-up circuit board
array is singulated, and both of the single printed circuit boards (PCBs) are
programmed in parallel in a single machine with four nests. Note that when
we use the term 2-up, we mean that there are two identical circuit boards that
are printed on a single board with the intention of separating (singulation)
them at a later time so that they can process through an automated surface
mount equipment as if they were a single circuit board—this is a common
practice in order to utilize standard equipment for custom circuit board sizes.
The remainder of the cell processes one PCB at a time. There are four test
machines in parallel in the latter part of the cell, as shown in the layout sketch
in Figure 6.25.
On the first part of the cycle, the worker takes and singulates a 2-up PCB.
While still holding a part in each hand, the worker then walks to the program-
ming station. The programming station has four nests; two are empty, and two
have parts that have already completed programming. The worker places the

Figure 6.25  Real-life example of change of unit of flow during the work cycle.
108  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.26  Singulate process in the cell complicates parallel machines issue.

two parts into the empty nests. Next, he or she unloads one programmed part
and moves to the compliant pin press. The remainder of the pass is completed
with a one-piece flow. However, once a part is packed, the worker must skip the
singulate process, go directly to the programming station, and take the remaining
previously programmed part. (The other two parts are still being programmed.)
Again, this pass continues with one-piece flow. After the pack process, the singu-
late cycle begins to repeat, and the worker again gets a 2-up PCB and proceeds
to the singulate process. This results in a very complex sequence numbering of
the zones, as shown in Figure 6.26.
Since there are parallel machines at the final test step, the data table portion
of the WCT becomes very large, as we learned in the previous real-world exam-
ple. This often requires that we cut and paste together larger versions of a paper
WCT form. If we try to develop the WCT on a computer, it becomes very dif-
ficult to ensure that all the steps are captured and recorded in the correct order,
especially the walk times. As before, the data table must be cut and pasted to be
readable in this field guide. Refer to Figure 6.27.
The designed-in variation begins to take form as we develop the WCT graph.
As we can see, the two- to one-piece flow problem can be shown if the WCT is
drawn properly. The WCT in Figure 6.28 shows the first two parts.
 Work Combination Table  ◾  109

Figure 6.27  Data table portion of WCT becomes larger and more complicated.

Wrap-Up
After the WCT is created and the problems are correctly represented, the tool is
now ready for analysis. Just as it is necessary to first stabilize the situation when
applying standardized work before sustainable improvements can be made, it is
necessary that the graphic on the WCT reflect the real problems and issues so
that analysis can be done, and the kaizen process can proceed. In the preced-
ing example, a first step might be to try and eliminate the variation due to the
change of flow. This would eliminate the 3 seconds of variation between succes-
sive passes through the cell. The next step would be to try and verify that the
110  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 6.28  Variation is high even with less walk and load/unload time.

time was eliminated if the necessary changes were made. It is very important to
find a way to verify that any proposed changes will have the expected results
before making any permanent or expensive changes to the system. Otherwise,
if the problem is analyzed incorrectly, the situation may have less than expected
results or actually get worse.
These last two examples show us that the real world presents us with some
very complex challenges. Some people would say that trying to develop an accu-
rate WCT for examples such as these last two is a significant waste of time. We
strongly disagree, as we have seen from our examples, that there are significant
opportunities for improvement. If we understand how to make and use an accu-
rate WCT, the rewards can be significant as well.
One last point—throughout this field guide, we have tried to show that almost
everything can be done by hand with a pencil and paper. However, many peo-
ple prefer to use computer-based versions of the tools and techniques that were
demonstrated. As we have seen in these last two real-world examples, there are
many aspects of these methods that are not easily adapted to a computer. This is
why a computer-based WCT is insufficient to properly document the issues.
Work Combination Table  ◾  111
Chapter 7

Questions for Work

Combination Table Review

Introduction

In Chapter 6, we went through the development of a work combination table

(WCT), and we now see that many of the tools are meant to be used in conjunc-
tion. This is a very important point to realize as there are quite a few tools, meth-
ods, and principles in Lean, so there are going to be many instances where they
intersect or otherwise overlap. This is a good thing since Lean is not a science

113
114  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

but rather more of a way of thinking. This thinking can be applied to anywhere
that there are work processes. Because of this fact, by now, we should have
begun to see where the thinking can be expanded to a potentially unlimited
number of applications. We say potentially unlimited because we must be careful
not to limit the possibilities because of our thinking being too shallow. One need
only look at the number of Lean books, conferences, Internet blogs, and other
sources to hear about how others have found ways to apply the principles in
their own varied applications, so it naturally follows that the tools and techniques
would also apply—one just has to think deeply and have an open mind.

Question 1: (Choose one) Which of the following steps is not correct when
creating an accurate work combination chart?

1. Start with a layout sketch.

2. Draw a rough diagram based on the layout sketch.
3. Define the read points and capture the times from observed cycles.
4. Enter the past historical standard cycle times into the WCT form.
5. Create the work combination diagram from the data in the table.
6. Use the completed WCT to look from opportunities for improvement.

Use the answer area for question 1 for your answer.

 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  115

Question 2: (True or false) The desired cycle time (DCT) or takt time (TT) can
be used in the graphical side of the WCT to compare the worker and machine
observed cycle times (OCTs).
Use the answer area for question 2 for your answer.

Question 3: (True or false) When a machine time approaches and extends

past the red line, which could be defined as TT or DCT, it is okay to stop this
machine element time at the line for the next cycle.
Use the answer area for question 3 for your answer.

Question 4: (True or false) When the OCT is less than the TT or the DCT and
the worker is forced to stop momentarily until conditions allow continuing are
denoted as waiting.
116  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Use the answer area for question 4 for your answer.

Question 5a: Complete the work combination diagram using the times
recorded in the WCT for question 5a including the work, walk, and wait statistics.
Note: The worker does not have to wait on the wheel test machine cycle for the
vehicle assembly. He or she will unload the vehicle assembly from the prior work
cycle to be taken to the inspect-and-pack workstation. The worker will then
load the new vehicle assembly to the wheel test workstation. At this time, the
wheel test process begins, but the worker is able to move on as soon as the part
exchange is made in the wheel test part nest.

The change in the wheel test for this exercise is a common improvement that
is made in many applications where variation needs to be reduced. For example,
if the worker was expected to wait for a specified amount of time, there would
inherently be variation in the wait time since we would be relying on the work-
er’s perception of time, which can vary greatly from person to person. One com-
mon improvement from simply asking the worker to pause or wait for a specific
amount of time is to add some way to recognize that the correct amount of time
has elapsed and is a visual or audible cue such as a light or a bell. This is similar
to the cues that we look for when using one of the stopwatch methods. However,
even this may not be precise enough in some situations. Another way is to rely
on the machine itself since this can be done quite easily with the technology
that is currently available. It is important to be able to recognize when there are
 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  117

opportunities for reducing variation that are caused by relying too heavily on the
worker for actions that are more suited for a machine. Not only is variation intro-
duced by design when we rely on the perception and reaction time of a worker;
it also overburdens him or her with extra work, which can cause unnecessary
stress and fatigue.

Question 5b: Did the OCT for the vehicle assembly work task meet the
required TT?

Use the answer area for question 5b for your answer.

The term observed cycle time was introduced to help distinguish a particular
cycle time that was actually observed and measured. If we were observing a pro-
cess and captured the actual time of an actual cycle, we would call this an obser-
vation or the OCT. It may or may not be equal to our particular standard time,
which would be denoted as TT or the DCT. We would expect our observation
samples to vary somewhat as it would be unrealistic to expect otherwise. In our
continuous improvement efforts, we strive to reduce the variation and eliminate
118  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

as many causes of variation that are economically feasible. But, we should also
be on the lookout for special causes of variation that would not occur very fre-
quently since these observations may often be more economical to ignore and
focus on the more common causes of variation in your application.

Question 5c: (True or false) The machine time for the wheel test step does not
have an impact on the ability to meet the required TT.
Use the answer area for question 5c in your answer.

It is important to be able to determine what impact a change to the process

will have in our continuous improvement efforts. The WCT can help us with this
determination. If it accurately reflects the current state, then it becomes much
easier to analyze the impact of any changes. However, if it is not accurate or
does not exist at all, we can miss many opportunities for improvement. This is
because we may not be able to correctly determine the potential positive impact,
or, even worse, we may have already given up and assumed that the current
 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  119

state is the best that we can ever achieve. This last problem is more common
than we might like to think. In our Lean experiences around the world, we have
sadly found this to be true in too many cases. Efforts to produce a Lean system
often result in people feeling that the culmination of their efforts have resulted in
a win and then proceed on to the next problem thinking that they are done with
this particular problem. If we are diligent and thorough, we can easily avoid this
pitfall.

Question 5d: If an improvement opportunity in the layout is recognized and

the change shown in the WCT for question 5d could be implemented and veri-
fied to eliminate the walk between the final assembly step and the wheel test
step, would the ability to meet the required TT be achievable? Redraw the work
combination diagram to see.

This last exercise is a good example of the power of having an accurate

and up-to-date WCT. The left side of the WCT reflects the real-world aspects of
the process steps in time and sequence. The right side is intended to provide
a visual representation of the left-side data. However, once everything is cor-
rect, this does not mean that we are finished. The WCT can now be useful for
doing what-if scenarios for evaluating the impact of changes to the system that
is reflected by the tool. Without this tool, some changes may not be able to be
accurately analyzed. If the change can quickly and easily be undone, this trial-
and-error approach may be fine. However, some changes may not be easily and
inexpensively reversed. Having and knowing how to properly use an accurate
and up-to-date WCT might prevent us from making a costly mistake.
120  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Answers for WCT Review

 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  121

Question 1: (Choose one) Which of the following steps is not correct when creat-
ing an accurate work combination chart?
1. Start with a layout sketch.
2. Draw a rough diagram based on the layout sketch.
3. Define read points and capture the times from observed cycles.
4. Enter the past historical standard cycle times into the WCT form.
5. Create the work combination diagram from the data in the table.
6. Use the completed WCT to look for opportunities for improvement.
See answer for question 1.

Question 2: (True or false) The DCT or TT can be used in the graphical side
of the WCT to compare the worker and machine OCTs.
See answer for question 2.
122  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

There are occasions when the DCT should be the standard because the TT
is not useful. A common example where this occurs is when there are multiple
products that are run in a work cell, but they have different overall cycle times. As
we know, takt time is a standard time that is derived by dividing the number of
parts that are required over an allotted amount of time. If we simply total all the
volumes of parts that are needed and divide it by the total time that is allotted, the
TT standard would have no meaning for each different product being observed.
Some might argue that a weighted TT value might be derived for each product
with a particular overall cycle time, but this can be difficult, time consuming, and
very prone to errors—not to mention the fact that the times only apply to a spe-
cific mix of volumes. Using the DCT avoids these issues and is why we strongly
recommend that the readers have a good understanding of both standards.

Question 3: (True or false) When a machine time approaches and extends

past the red line, which could be defined as TT or DCT, it is okay to stop this
machine element time at the line for the next cycle.

See answer and additional explanation for question 3.

 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  123

The main reason for wrapping a machine time once it reaches the vertical
standard timeline is that it allows us to determine visually if the machine will be
complete by the time the worker returns to that particular machine. It is possible
that the machine could still be completing a part from the previous cycle, and
this would cause the worker to be forced to wait until the machine completes
that part before his or her cycle can continue. But, this may not be a desir-
able situation. For example, if a worker knows that he or she will be forced to
wait somewhere in his or her cycle, it is a common problem for him or her to
decrease his or her pace a bit. This type of problem can be extremely difficult
to resolve as it can be hard to see if the wait was absorbed by the decrease in
pace. Therefore, we should always be on the lookout for instances where the
worker must wait.

Question 4: (True or false) When the OCT is less than the TT or the DCT and
the worker is forced to stop momentarily until conditions allow continuing are
denoted as waiting.

See answer and additional explanation for question 4.

124  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Waiting is a common form of waste. Unfortunately, some form of wait-

ing is probably present in just about every process in every industry that we
will ever see. Since steps take time (even if it is in very small amounts), this
causes a delay before steps later in the process can occur, and, from their
perspective, this delay is waiting. However, just because some form of waiting
will always exist in our processes, this does not mean that we simply accept
it. The concept of continuous improvement, or the kaizen attitude, should
drive us to constantly look for and implement practical ways to reduce all
forms of waste.
As we can see from these last few questions, wait can cause many issues for
the worker. One of the main reasons we hear from workers for not wanting to
wait is that they feel that it will look like they are not doing their job properly.
This is why it is very important to capture the real situation with the standard-
ized work—particularly in the WCT. By capturing the wait properly, the true situ-
ation is shown, and the opportunity for improvement is quite clear. If the worker
must wait anywhere during his or her cycle, it can then act as a visual cue for
our observations. If it is hidden or obscured by a decrease in the worker’s pace,
the opportunity for improvement might be missed.

Question 5a: Complete the work combination diagram using the times
recorded in the WCT for question 5a including the work, walk, and wait statistics.
 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  125

Note: The worker does not have to wait on the wheel test machine cycle for
the vehicle assembly. He or she will unload the vehicle assembly from the prior
work cycle to be taken to the inspect-and-pack workstation. He or she will then
load the new vehicle assembly to the wheel test workstation. At this time, the
wheel test process begins, but the worker is able to move on as soon as the part
exchange is made in the wheel test part nest.
See answer for question 5a.
126  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 5b: Did the OCT for the vehicle assembly work task meet the
required TT?

See answer and additional explanation for question 5b.

Should we be extremely worried about whether or not we are going to have

problems meeting our production schedule if we have a situation such as the
one that was presented in question 5b? Not really, because a 1-second difference
between the DCT and the TT can usually be resolved quite easily if we are dili-
gent in our continuous improvement efforts. This is where the concept of kaizen
can really be seen because it is these small increments of improvement that can
sometimes help us achieve our goals.

Question 5c: (True or false) The machine time for the wheel test step does not
have an impact on the ability to meet the required TT.

See answer and additional explanation for question 5c.

 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  127

Question 5d: If an improvement opportunity in the layout is recognized and the

change shown in the WCT for question 5d could be implemented and verified to
eliminate the walk between the final assembly step and the wheel test step, would
the ability to meet the required TT be achievable? Redraw the work combination
diagram to see.
128  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

See answer and additional explanation for question 5d.

 Questions for Work Combination Table Review  ◾  129

As discussed, after question 4, we should always be concerned if there are

situations where the worker is required to wait. We know that it can cause other
problems as well as additional issues for the worker. Sometimes, it is quite easy
for him or her to wait because he or she cannot continue until something else
is completed. However, there are also instances where this may not be the case.
Consider the situation where the DCT is less than the TT, and the worker is not
constrained by having to wait for something to finish before he or she continues.
If he or she was able to continue, he or she is overproducing, and this can cause
even more problems. Therefore, it is always important to proceed with caution if
there is any wait that is built into the worker’s cycle.
Chapter 8

Where Do We Go from Here?

Introduction

In Chapters 1 through 7, we learned how to use the more common standard-

ized work tools and techniques. During our travels, we also learned how to
apply these things in many not-so-common situations. These difficult situations
came about for a lot of different reasons: some industry specific and others due

131
132  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

to design issues. Although you many never experience all of them in your own
adventures, you will most likely run across some of them, and it is our hope that
by sharing a few of our experiences with various types of problems encoun-
tered and how we learned to deal with them, it might prove helpful to others.
Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world out there, and the issues and problems
we run across are often never mentioned in many published works that we have
read over the years. Even some of our friends and teachers from Toyota tell us
that they had never seen some of the problems that we discussed in this field
guide. This forced us to step back and think deeply about the problems in order
to try and find a way to adapt the tools and techniques for a particular issue.
Our intent in sharing some of the difficulties we have encountered is twofold.
First, it is not to rob the readers of the learning experience of finding a way of
dealing with their issues for themselves but rather to show a few selected exam-
ples of our own learning experiences in the hopes that it might give them the
confidence to follow through and find a way to adequately deal with the prob-
lem or issue. Too many times, we have seen people get discouraged that their
particular application does not lend itself easily to using the tools and techniques
in this field guide and often give up entirely or at least only utilize a very small
percentage of them. As a result, they can miss some great opportunities for
improvement. The second intent is to get the readers to start thinking outside the
box as they say and recognize that these tools and techniques can work in other
applications aside from simple work cell applications. But, before we end our
adventures together, there are a few other tools that should be mentioned.
 Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  133

Up until this point, we have looked for opportunities that focus on reducing
waste and variation. Many of the Lean tools and principles were originally devel-
oped with the focus of becoming more efficient in order to use the least amount
of resources to achieve the customer requirements—a particular number of parts
in a particular amount of time, for example. This is because the concept of Lean is
derived from the Toyota Production System whose intent is to deliver the best value
to the customer in the most efficient manner. In the automotive industry, there is a
relatively limited annual demand that is met by a small number of sources—many
of which constantly try to gain some market share that eventually must come from
the other suppliers. The supply and the demand are not that far apart due to the
high cost of manufacturing automobiles. Just because a manufacturer can produce
more vehicles, it does not automatically follow that they will sell the additional cars.
However, in some industries, the demand can far exceed the available supply,
so if a business is able to produce more without adding too much cost, it is pos-
sible to make more profit. During our journeys, it has probably occurred to you
that we can also make improvements that are focused on other things such as
capacity or output, especially since machines are often part of our process times.
In the automobile example, the focus was on increasing profit by producing at
the lowest cost—this was because it is very expensive to significantly increase
output and sales together. In other words, just because we could make more,
it does not mean that we can sell more. We would also need for sales demand
to increase accordingly as we have to attract customers from the other suppli-
ers due to the limited demand. Although increased marketing can help increase
the demand, it is an expense and not a physical asset. In order to maintain the
demand, it may require constant marketing, which increases expenses.
134  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Man–Machine Utilization Graph

But, what if the situation was different? What if increasing the sales demand was
not so expensive or already existed? If a business could produce more, it could
most likely sell more. In such cases, increasing the output would also be desir-
able in our search for opportunities to improve. Of course, reducing waste in the
work components that result in a shorter overall cycle time would increase the
capacity of the system until the practical limit of the system was reached—at that
point, additional resources would be required to increase the capacity. But, how
do we determine the practical limit of a system? This varies according to the situ-
ation. Most systems are constrained by labor or process capacity. In cases such as
a work cell where people and machines both impact the overall cycle time, it is
not too difficult to determine the practical limits of the system of various condi-
tions. A tool that is very useful in such cases is called a man–machine utilization
graph (MUG).
In Figure 8.1, we see an MUG based on the example starting with Figure 6.4.
The left side of the MUG is where we total up all the work components for each
worker. In the example, there were 43 seconds of total work, 18 seconds of total
walk, and 9 seconds of wait. When these are added together, we get 70 seconds,
which for this example is the desired cycle time (DCT). If there were other work-
ers involved with the particular system, then they would also be shown.

75
Desired cycle time
70

65 9

60

55
18
50

45
Time in seconds

40

35

30
Current system limit
25
43
20
Variation
10 20
15 Walk time

10 9 8 Wait time
14 Manual time
5 12
5 6 6 Machine time
0
Worker Conveyor Crimper Leak Test and Pack Legend
station station tester label station

Figure 8.1  Example of an MUG.

 Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  135

The right side of the MUG is where we total up the process times. If we have
forced wait, it is also shown if it affects a particular process time. In this exam-
ple, the wait time is added to the work time for the conveyor station since the
worker must wait 9 seconds for the next part to arrive on the conveyor before he
or she can begin the next cycle. On the crimper station, we see that there is 12
seconds of work followed by 10 seconds of machine time before the next cycle
of this process can begin. For the leak tester, we see that it has 6 seconds of
work before the test starts, and then there is 20 seconds of test time before this
process can start again. Similarly, the test and label process also has 6 seconds of
work time before the 8 seconds of machine time can start. And, finally, we see
that the pack station has 14 seconds of manual work before it could be repeated.
The process with the greatest total is the current system limit.

The MUG can help understand the capacity as the system currently stands as
well as the maximum capacity. It does this by combining two graphs together in
order to compare the two main aspects of a system that uses both worker time
and machine time. The man side is on the left, and the machine side is on the
right. In Figure 8.1, we have seen that the DCT is limited currently by the man
side at 70 seconds. We say that it is limited because it is the greatest total of the
two sides. If we were to decrease any of the work component totals in the stack
on the left side, we would see a direct decrease in the DCT as well. This helps
us look at opportunities to improve that are based on the work components
that affect the worker’s job. However, the improvements on the left side, even if
136  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

feasible, are not unlimited. If the total continues to be reduced, eventually, there
is a practical limit of how low the stack on the left can go down. This is the
point where the stack on the right comes into play—the current system limit.

The current system limit represents the point where under the current condi-
tions, if the man-side components could somehow be reduced sufficiently, one
or more machine process times become the limiting factor. Normally, there is
only one highest stack on the right side constraining the current system limit, but
it is possible to have more than one process and labor combination that are tied
for the highest stack. In any event, the current system limit would represent the
maximum capacity of the system under the current conditions. Notice that when
we refer to current conditions, we mean the conditions that this particular graph
was created under. If any of the conditions change, the graph must be updated
to reflect the new conditions. For example, notice in the example MUG that the
worker time is included not only on the man side but also in some of the stacks
on the machine side. This means that if the worker time is decreased, not only
will the man-side stack change, but, almost certainly, there will be changes on
the machine side as well because the current conditions have changed. These
changes may or may not reduce the highest stack on the machine side, but the
MUG should always be updated if the conditions change. If you are using the
MUG for evaluating a possible change, the same situation applies—the differ-
ence may be that we must think deeper to understand the effect that a possible
change would have to do on each side to see if we think that it is feasible.
 Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  137

Task Summary Sheet

Up until now, we have been discussing tools and techniques that seem to revolve
around work cells. However, work cells are not the only place where these tools
and techniques can work. They can be adapted to other applications that have
similarities with the work cell issues. For example, in Chapter 6, it was briefly
mentioned that the work combination table can also be used for situations such as
changeovers because the tool helps visualize the effect of each work component
on the total end-to-end time of a repeatable work sequence. It is not our intention
to try and list all the possibilities out there for these tools and techniques because
they are endless. Our intent has been to try and encourage the readers to not only
understand how to use and adapt the tools and techniques, but also, by thinking
deeper about them, we can find ways to use them for other situations where stan-
dardized work and continuous improvement concepts can be applied.
In our experiences in applying standardized work across many work applica-
tions, both inside and outside of manufacturing, we have found a definite need
for a tool that allows for more details to be made available without becoming too
cumbersome. A tool that we have found to be very helpful for standardized work
applications is one that we refer to as a task summary sheet (TSS). The TSS is
adapted from the Training Within Industry tool that is called the job instruction.
An example of a TSS is shown in Figure 8.2.
138  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Figure 8.2  Simple example of a TSS.

The TSS is a simple and versatile tool for standardized work applications that
do not lend themselves to the tools that we have discussed up to this point.
For example, if there were some additional information that the worker needed
for the pack station step in the example in Figure 8.2, the tools up to this point
have not offered an opportunity to capture and supply this information for
the worker. The TSS could be used to supply this information for the worker
when needed. A common example is for training purposes. Another example
is as a reference for a worker who has not performed the task in a long time
and needs to refamiliarize himself or herself with the important details of the
task—a good real-life example of this that we have seen is for an annual inven-
tory in a hospital gift shop. The inventory is only performed once per year,
and it is difficult to remember all the steps and important issues when a great
deal of time passes between cycles. In this real-life example, there are several
interim steps that need to be performed, including the setup and preparation
of software, file transfers, file renaming, and so on. Without standardized work,
this task could not only be very difficult and prone to errors but also a great
source of variation. The TSS allows the right information to be available and in
the right order.
When used in the context of standardized work, the TSS must also contain a
standard time, even if it is only a typical time for reference. In our example in
Figure 8.3, if there is no time standard, how long should the task take to com-
plete? How does the worker know if he or she is taking way too long or if he or
she is completing the task way too quickly? The time standard serves as a refer-
ence point for the worker or observer so that the work under observation can be
compared to the standard, just like a cyclic task that is repeated every 30 seconds
in a work cell.
 Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  139

Figure 8.3  Example TSS for hospital gift shop annual inventory.

Notice that there are five columns on the right side of the TSS. The first one is
for “Worker Alert Symbols,” which will be described in more detail in a moment.
The next column is for the “Major Step Numbers.” The third one is called the
“Major Step” and should be a simple text that is used to describe the name of
each particular step so that it breaks down the major steps of a process into
separate sequential parts. The fourth column is called “Key Points.” It is used to
list or describe any key points or important issues for that particular step. The
last column is simply called “Reasons.” It is used when there is a need to explain
the reasons why something is done in a particular way. Often, this is used when
there is more than one way to do something on this step, and a particular way
is necessary. It could be because there is some information that is not obvious to
the worker or other observers, or it could be as simple as the workers themselves
decided on an arbitrary way just to reduce variation. There may not be a need in
all cases to use the reasons column, but most processes have at least some key
points or important issues during the steps of the process.
140  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

A very important feature of the TSS is the column for symbols. This allows us
to predefine a set of simple symbols that can be added for each step that serve
as a visual reminder of important considerations. For example, there may be
issues on specific steps for safety, government regulations, local or federal laws,
the extra accuracy that is required, and so on that it is important to remind the
worker, trainer, auditor, or other observers about. These symbols can be cus-
tomized as required as long as a legend key is available for reference. Figure 8.4
shows an example of a TSS symbol legend key from a hospital.

Quality check
Safety issue for the worker

Standard in-process stock

Hand-off point
Critical customer requirement
Patient satisfaction issue
Safety issue for the patient
Security issue
Hospital rule issue
Sterile environment issue

Figure 8.4  Example TSS symbol legend key.

 Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  141

The left side of the TSS is intended for pictures, illustrations, tables, etc., that
serve to assist the worker in some way. This could include setup, adjustment, tips
for the worker, or other helpful information of a visual nature. Sometimes, a pic-
ture can help more than several pages of text, and the TSS is not meant to be an
extremely detailed tool. Rather, it is intended to be as simple as possible and still
convey the important information that is necessary for the worker to accomplish
the standardized work.
Normally, standardized work is kept very simple and often only constructed
from paper forms with a pencil. However, in real life, there are many applica-
tions for standardized work that do not fit the simple application of a cyclic work
cell. This does not mean that standardized work is not applicable. The tools that
have been introduced throughout this field guide are meant to make the worker’s
job easier and less variable without adding undue complexity—either in the
development or maintenance of standardized work. With the access and avail-
ability of computers, printers, wireless networks, digital cameras, tablets, smart
phones, and other handheld electronic devices, it is often easier to use electronic
files than paper ones. The key is to always remember that the information is for
the worker’s benefit and that, in order to be able to continuously improve, we
may need to update the files often. The updating process for standardized work
tools and documentation should not be in any way a detriment to keeping the
information accurate and up to date. Otherwise, this will only serve to encourage
waiting for significant changes where it is worth the time and trouble that it takes
to make the updates. This is a major problem anytime the standardized work is
not just pencil and paper that can be updated at the gemba on the fly.
142  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Take the gift shop example that was described in Figure 8.3. There was an
enormous reduction in the man hours that are required for the annual inven-
tory of all the gift shops. The number decreased from 312 hours for the previous
year to only 36.5 hours—a decrease of over 88%. Some people would agree that
this reduction was so drastic that there would be little reason to spend any more
time trying to reduce the time further in the coming years. However, one issue
that became very clear, performing the annual inventory with the new method
utilizing the barcode scanner, was very different from before, and the interfacing
with the computer was not intuitive to the workers, many of whom were vol-
unteers and may or may not be present in the next year’s inventory activities.
Therefore, the implementation of standardized work was necessary not just to
reduce variation from year to year but also to offer a means to retain the infor-
mation since the process was only performed once per year. By using the TSS
as the standardized work form for this task, since the initial change, the time to
perform the inventory has further decreased from 36.5 to 13 hours—a decrease
of over 64%. In addition, since, by the very nature of standardized work, there
must be a standard time for comparison, the workers who might be less familiar
with the process can use the standard to help them determine if they are on the
right track—similar to the concept of takt that is described in New Horizons in
Standardized Work (Martin and Bell 2011, pp. 60–64). However, the long time
between uses should not be a deterrent to working on improvements. If it is, we
miss the opportunity for additional improvement. In a situation like the annual
inventory, it is critical to take every chance to improve since it is a long time
between opportunities to observe.
Throughout this field guide, we have repeatedly stressed the importance
of continuous improvement. We have learned not only how to apply and use
several standardized work tools and techniques for reducing variation but also
how to use them for making continuous improvements. By now, we should
have begun to realize that in order to actually apply the concept of continuous
improvement, we must be prepared for continuous changes to our documenta-
tion and training. This brings up two extremely important issues: (1) we must
be diligent in making sure that we capture every change to the standardized
work and update all documentation, worker aids, and training materials that are
affected, and (2) we must be timely and thorough in making sure that all changes
are communicated to everyone who is involved. Otherwise, the result can be the
same as not having any standardized work at all.
Where Do We Go from Here?  ◾  143
Chapter 9

Questions for Miscellaneous

Tools Review

Introduction

The man–machine utilization graph (MUG) is a very useful tool. Just as the work
combination table (WCT) can help us identify and analyze improvement oppor-
tunities that are related to the individual work components, the MUG can help us
identify and analyze opportunities for an entire system or work cell. It allows us to

145
146  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

better understand how both the workers and the individual process steps impact
one another as well as the entire system. It can quickly show the current limits
of the system and help us to intuitively identify opportunities and limitations. In
addition, the MUG is much less complex than the WCT and therefore easier, faster,
and less prone to errors. Sadly, like the WCT, it is also often overlooked by many,
which can mean that there are a lot of missed opportunities for improvement.
However, for those who are diligent and willing to put the extra effort into devel-
oping WCTs and a MUG for their system, the rewards can be well worth the effort.

Question 1: From the WCT for question 1, develop the man–machine utiliza-
tion graph (MUG for question 1).
 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review  ◾  147

Question 2: What is the maximum capacity per hour of the assembly system
in the completed MUG for question 1?

Use the answer area for question 2 for your answer.

This example is for a single worker in a work cell. There are many systems
that utilize multiple workers, and the method is the same. The only difference is
that there will be more workers, which is shown on the left side of the graph. The
worker interaction with each machine or process step time is completed just as it
is for one worker. Although, for simplicity, we show only the work, walk, wait, and
machine times, it is okay to include other times if they also impact the system such
as variation. Another example is delays that are brought about by external inter-
lock times such as those that are caused by interrupting a machine cycle during
the work cycle by a material replenishment worker or an automated guided vehicle
(AGV). If the time impacts the worker and/or the process time, it is a candidate for
inclusion on the MUG.
148  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 3a: If we had the ability to staff a worker at each station in the assembly
system with only adding 2 seconds to each workstation for part handling between
stations, complete the MUG for question 3a.

Question 3b: What would be the maximum capacity per hour from the com-
pleted MUG for question 3a?
Use the answer area for question 3b for your answer.
 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review  ◾  149

Question 4: Why is the walk time not shown on the right side of the man–
machine utilization chart?

Use the answer area for question 4 for your answer.

Walking is a big part of a lot of processes. Although it adds no value, it is

often a necessary part of standardized work. It is very important that we have
a good understanding of the effects that it has and how it is used in the vari-
ous standardized work tools. Since things are never perfect, trying to reduce one
type of waste often results in a compromise with another form of waste. Walk
is a good example of this. We often have to add walking in order to not waste
another worker’s time. However, we are not saying that walking is unavoidable,
only that we often must be keenly aware that we may have to make some trade-
offs on our journey to improve the overall system.
150  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 5: (Choose one) Which of the following items below should not be
included on a task summary sheet (TSS)?

1. Pictures and sketches.

2. Key symbols.
3. Step numbers.
4. Major step descriptions.
5. Key points.
6. Reasons.
7. Time.
8. All of the above items should be included on a TSS.

Use the answer area for question 5 for your answer.

 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review  ◾  151

Answers for Miscellaneous Tools Questions

The tools and techniques that have been introduced in this field guide are
not all that unique. Many have been around a long time and may be known
by many other names. The important thing is to understand how and when
they can be applied to help us in our efforts of continuous improvement. By
now, it should become apparent that the application of these tools and tech-
niques is much wider than just simply work cells in a manufacturing setting.
They can be used in some manner in basically any situation where work is
involved. Once we recognize an opportunity, the next issue is finding a way
to adapt it if necessary. It is beyond the scope of this book to try and list all
the possible applications as they are most likely endless anyway. One of our
goals was to try and get the readers familiar with how these tools and tech-
niques are used in the simple manufacturing applications so that they could
grasp the ideas behind them and thus provide a solid foundation for adapting
them to whatever application that was required. They may not look exactly
like the ones in this field guide after they are adapted, but that does not
matter as long as they help the readers in their own journeys to continually
improve.
152  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 1: From the WCT for question 1, develop the man–machine utiliza-
tion graph (MUG for question 1).

See completed MUG for question 1.

Notice how easy it is to develop the MUG if we have a good and legible WCT
to work with. It is possible to produce an MUG without one, but if we have an
accurate and up-to-date version, the development of the MUG is very quick and
simple.

Question 2: What is the maximum capacity per hour of the assembly system
in the completed MUG for question 1?

See answer for question 2.

Once we answer question 2 above using the MUG, it becomes obvious that
the system itself is capable of more output. The natural question that arises is
how can we get more output if needed? However, the MUG not only lets us
look at current limitations but also allows a simple means of doing some what-if
analysis, as shown in question 3a.
 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review  ◾  153

Question 3a: If we had the ability to staff a worker at each station in the
assembly system with only adding 2 seconds to each workstation for part han-
dling between stations, complete the MUG for question 3a.
See completed MUG for question 3a.

As we can see from the completed MUG for question 3a, the system is capable
of producing at a much faster rate if more workers are added. Although adding
workers to a system will not always have a dramatic impact, we need to under-
stand the effect that adding labor has to the maximum system output before we
can decide if it is feasible to do so. So, again, we ask the question: what is the
new maximum system output?

Question 3b: What would be the maximum capacity per hour from the com-
pleted MUG for question 3a?

See answer for question 3b.

154  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

Question 4: Why is the walk time not shown on the right side of the man–
machine utilization chart?

See answer for question 4.

Question 5: (Choose one) Which of the following items should not be included
on a TSS?

1. Pictures and sketches.

2. Key symbols.
3. Step numbers.
4. Major step descriptions.
5. Key points.
6. Reasons.
7. Time.
8. All of the above items should be included on a TSS.
 Questions for Miscellaneous Tools Review  ◾  155

See answer for question 5.

The TSS is probably one of the most versatile tools since it can be adapted to
so many work situations. It is almost tailor-made for applications where the worker
must execute a task that is performed on a very infrequent basis. We have used
it countless times for ensuring that although a task is performed infrequently, it is
executed the same way each and every time, no matter who performs the work
on a particular instance. Not only does it help make the task much more predict-
able and thus reduce variability, it also helps ensure quality—the job is designed
to produce the highest quality, and, if we reduce variability, we also reduce the
chance of error. Although we cannot guarantee perfection, reducing variation is
one way of making the chance of error creeping into our process smaller.
In some standardized work applications, for those using an SWC, for example,
most of the steps may be simple and require little explanation. However, this is
not always the case as some steps may require standardized work themselves.
This is why we call this tool a task summary sheet as it can be used to capture
the major steps; important points; reasons why something is to be done a certain
way; illustrations; and any other tips, tricks, or information that may be required.
It can serve as documentation for steps that require more explanation, which
156  ◾  The Standardized Work Field Guide

in turn can be used to train new workers as well as preserve the information
to make sure that it is not lost—often, this type of information is not captured
elsewhere and can be lost over time. Once a worker is trained, he or she nor-
mally does not need to access the documentation on these tools unless he or she
references them, while he or she is working on an improvement effort. However,
when a new worker is brought on board, there must be standardization in the
way that he or she is trained in the work, and the TSS along with the other tools
can help ensure that this can occur.
As we complete our journey in the field, we would just like to say that we
hope that you have found this guide to be useful. We also hope that you enjoyed
our attempt at bringing some lightheartedness to this subject. We have had a lot
of fun trying to inject some silliness while putting the field guide together. Work
does not always have to be so strict and formal.
Reference

Martin, T. D. and J. T. Bell. 2011. New Horizons in Standardized Work: Techniques for
Manufacturing and Business Process Improvement. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press/
Taylor & Francis.

157
About the Authors

Timothy D. Martin is a process engineer with more than 30 years of experi-

ence in manufacturing engineering and, for the last six years, has been work-
ing in the healthcare industry. He has been a Lean practitioner for more than
20 years and brings with him a broad range of continuous improvement experi-
ence including extensive hands-on Lean implementation in the United States as
well as coaching and mentoring Lean implementations in several countries dur-
ing his career. In addition to his Lean experiences, he has led hundreds of suc-
cessful continuous improvement projects in North America as well as developed
and delivered Lean training at sites in the United States, Mexico, Europe, and
Asia. Tim is currently one of the leaders in the Lean transformation of a health-
care system with 14 hospitals and multiple physician practices.
Tim earned a bachelor of science in electrical engineering technology degree
from Purdue University, a master of science in management degree from Indiana
Wesleyan University, and an associate in computer science degree from Brewer
State Junior College. He received training in the Toyota Production System from
the Toyota Supplier Support Center where he was also validated as a trainer in
standardized work.

165
166  ◾  About the Authors

During his many years in the automotive electronics industry, Tim was a
staff-level engineer, an engineering supervisor, a Lean manufacturing sys-
tems leader, and a strategic planner. An innovative and creative engineer, he
received multiple patents and defensive publications. Tim has provided tech-
nical expertise for several mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. He is a
certified Black Belt in Lean Six Sigma healthcare through Purdue Healthcare
Advisors and holds a Lean Bronze Certification through the Society of
Manufacturing Engineers. In his early career, he spent several years in the
electrical manufacturing industry.

Jeffrey T. Bell has more than 30 years of experience in manufacturing.

He started in 1982 working in the aviation/aeronautical powerplant and electro-
motive component manufacturing and assembly arena. In 1991, he shifted into
the automotive sector and worked in various areas of circuit board and integrated
circuit fabrication and assembly for automotive electronics in the United States,
Mexico, and Europe. Jeff was introduced to Lean in the 1990s and has been a
practitioner ever since. In 2012, Jeff moved into the commercial kitchen and bath
cabinetry industry where he spent two years as the plant’s Lean manager resur-
recting their Lean culture. He is currently working at Franciscan St. Elizabeth
Health in the business transformation group as one of the leaders in the Lean
transformation of the Franciscan Alliance and their 14 hospitals and multiple phy-
sician practices.
Jeff has spent his whole career of project work, operations, and product line
support involved in the fields of industrial engineering and Lean manufacturing.
His journey started as a floor support industrial engineer and has had various
industrial engineering (IE) assignments in core IE, preproduction/product design,
supplier development, management, leadership, and new plant start-up. The
 About the Authors  ◾  167

countless number of hours of time spent observing in the gemba have given him
much of his perspective in understanding standardized work and its supportive
impact on safety, quality, delivery, and cost with respect to process, people, and
business. His work has allowed him to meet several hundred great people during
the combined efforts of continuous improvement throughout his career.
Jeff earned a bachelor of science in industrial engineering degree from
Kettering University and a master of science in industrial engineering degree
from Purdue University.
Tim Martin and Jeff Bell are also coauthors of New Horizons in Standardized
Work: Techniques for Manufacturing and Business Process Improvement (2011).

Scott A. Martin is a freelance artist/illustrator and business manager liv-

ing in Birmingham, Alabama. His educational background includes studying
general liberal arts at Beville State Community College in Fayette, Alabama as
well as studying communications at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa,
Alabama; however, he is artistically self-taught. His range of influences
includes Frank Frazetta and Bill Watterson. His unique styling is a culmination
of over 35 years as an artist. His artistic mission is to remain true to his own
styling while drawing a hard line between inspiration and imitation. Although
his most current works are in digital media, he is also experienced with other
forms of traditional art including pencil, ink, oil, and acrylics. He is also an
amateur sand sculptor, pumpkin carver, and printmaker. His most recent
works include book illustrations and website designs as well as private art col-
lections throughout the United States.
Business Management / Standardized Work

MARTIN • BELL • MARTIN

T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

Field Guide
“I do not think I have seen anyone take a dry subject like this and make it so fun, engaging,
and interactive. The Standardized Work Field Guide kept my inner five-year-old child
entertained and wanting to turn each page. It is clearly written and explained in language
that mere mortals can understand. I learned a number of tips about standard work that I

T H E
had not understood before. This is now my go-to book on standardized work.”
—Joseph Swartz, administrative director, business transformation, Franciscan Alliance, Inc.

S TA N D A R D I Z E D
“This guide walks you through the development of your standardized work. I encourage you
to take it to the gemba and use its templates and tables to document your processes as they
exist today. It is through its lessons, exercises, and repetitive use that you will gain experi-
ence and confidence to develop your documentation and reduce variation to create a
better product.”

—Brian W. Hudson, senior advisor, Lean Six Sigma Purdue Healthcare Advisors

W O R K
This field guide can be used directly on the gemba (work area) for implementing
and documenting standardized work. It promotes the "future state" of standard-

T H E S TA N D A R D I Z E D W O R K

F I E L D
ized work along with crucial step-by-step techniques and explanations not found

Field Guide
in other publications. The authors furnish many real examples of work problems
that cause Lean practitioners difficulty with documentation, along with accurate

G U I D E
solutions to those problems. The many illustrations and graphics focus on prac-
tice rather than theory. Readers learn that standardized work is not simply a tool
for documentation but a method for reducing variation and providing continuous
improvement through kaizen.

Timothy D. Martin • Jeffrey T. Bell • Scott A. Martin

K27283
ISBN-13: 978-1-4987-5201-5
90000

9 781498 752015