To Standardize, or to Not?
A frequent question that I get is how far to take standardization. This is particularly true for multiple locations. Then the question becomes how far do you go to standardize from site to site.
As with anything, to key to avoid getting lost in questions like this is to get and remain clear on the purpose of any tool. What is the purpose of standardization?
- Deliver repeatable results
- Develop a baseline upon which to manage and measure improvement
- Enable you to spot problems and variation
- Enable the transfer of knowledge
So with than in mind, what should you standardize across your network of operations and what should you not? Obviously there is a cost (although only in energy and resources) of creating and managing standardization across multiple locations. So when do the benefits outweigh the costs?
Let’s start with delivering repeatable results. If the process affects the customer value, such as how you process material, then having repeatable results is extremely important. If you are talking about how many steps to talk from one process to another, then repeatable results across sites isn’t nearly as vital.
Do you have a means to share best practices from site to site? Most organizations struggle with this, and there are no easy answers. But where you can, having some base standardization can aid in that transfer.
But consider the tradeoff. Standardization should also enable improvement. A lean organization should be improving through rapid experimentation every day. If cross-organizational standardization creates a bureaucracy that prevents rapid experimentation, then the true benefit is indeed lost.
The decision is something you must make for your organization. How deep, how broad, and how managed will your cross-site standardization be? Remember and evaluate the decision based on the benefits and tradeoffs. There is no one right answer, just don’t get locked into a path without realizing the benefits.
How has your organization handled this balance? What lessons have you learned?
If you find our advice help, please sign up to receive the ideas by RSS or email on the right.
I love your advice to ensure that standardization doesn’t inhibit innovation. That’s so important, and seems not on the radar of many of the standardization projects I’ve seen. There’s always such a rush to get standards into place. In fact, they often want to do so before they’ve even done the experimentation–only the speculation about how things should be done. I wrote about this problem in http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2007/01/16/make-it-work-before-you-make-it-standard/
I love your advice to ensure that standardization doesn’t inhibit innovation. That’s so important, and seems not on the radar of many of the standardization projects I’ve seen. There’s always such a rush to get standards into place. In fact, they often want to do so before they’ve even done the experimentation–only the speculation about how things should be done. I wrote about this problem in http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2007/01/16/make-it-work-before-you-make-it-standard/
I love your advice to ensure that standardization doesn’t inhibit innovation. That’s so important, and seems not on the radar of many of the standardization projects I’ve seen. There’s always such a rush to get standards into place. In fact, they often want to do so before they’ve even done the experimentation–only the speculation about how things should be done. I wrote about this problem in http://blog.gdinwiddie.com/2007/01/16/make-it-work-before-you-make-it-standard/
Great points, Jamie. I talked to somebody from a hospital the other day who said they had unfortunately erred in their early Lean efforts in giving the impression that standardized meant permanent. Kaizen has to be a part of the process, like you say.
I think there’s also a fundamental question of how much you standardize one particular task, job, or function in a single site before you go spreading that method (with or without modification).
Even Toyota teaches that standardization is a spectrum — the right point isn’t always completely the same (identical work). There might be some areas in which variation is acceptable and doesn’t impact the customer. Too many people err on the side of standardization meaning “everyone do everything exactly the same way” – especially when done in a top-down way, this doesn’t get much buy in.
Great points, Jamie. I talked to somebody from a hospital the other day who said they had unfortunately erred in their early Lean efforts in giving the impression that standardized meant permanent. Kaizen has to be a part of the process, like you say.
I think there’s also a fundamental question of how much you standardize one particular task, job, or function in a single site before you go spreading that method (with or without modification).
Even Toyota teaches that standardization is a spectrum — the right point isn’t always completely the same (identical work). There might be some areas in which variation is acceptable and doesn’t impact the customer. Too many people err on the side of standardization meaning “everyone do everything exactly the same way” – especially when done in a top-down way, this doesn’t get much buy in.
Great points, Jamie. I talked to somebody from a hospital the other day who said they had unfortunately erred in their early Lean efforts in giving the impression that standardized meant permanent. Kaizen has to be a part of the process, like you say.
I think there’s also a fundamental question of how much you standardize one particular task, job, or function in a single site before you go spreading that method (with or without modification).
Even Toyota teaches that standardization is a spectrum — the right point isn’t always completely the same (identical work). There might be some areas in which variation is acceptable and doesn’t impact the customer. Too many people err on the side of standardization meaning “everyone do everything exactly the same way” – especially when done in a top-down way, this doesn’t get much buy in.
Thanks George and Mark.
Standardizing being permanent obviously defeats the whole purpose of continuous improvement. One of the biggest challenges people put in the way of this is making the PROCESS of making CHANGES too difficult. Then people don’t want to improve because it creates too much work for them. Tragic. Keep it simple.
Thanks George and Mark.
Standardizing being permanent obviously defeats the whole purpose of continuous improvement. One of the biggest challenges people put in the way of this is making the PROCESS of making CHANGES too difficult. Then people don’t want to improve because it creates too much work for them. Tragic. Keep it simple.
Thanks George and Mark.
Standardizing being permanent obviously defeats the whole purpose of continuous improvement. One of the biggest challenges people put in the way of this is making the PROCESS of making CHANGES too difficult. Then people don’t want to improve because it creates too much work for them. Tragic. Keep it simple.