Work Instructions - Conflict? Toyota's method for creating work instructions

T

Toefuzz - 2006

Okie doke... I've been reading all about the Toyota Production System as of late and have toured several factories that have modeled their manufacturing processes after Toyota. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a conflict between Toyota's method for creating work instructions and what is required by the ISO standard. Many of the books I've read state that Toyota has extremely detailed work instructions going so far as to tell operators how to pick up a part (right hand or left), how to look at it, at what angle a box should be, etc. The logic behind this is that everyone should be performing the job as efficiently as possible and standardizing the work instructions helps to ensure this. If an employee is found to be doing something differently they examine why and decide whether the operator needs to change or whether the work instructions need to be updated and the change implemented plant wide. I thought about trying to implement something like this in our shop and can only see negatives in terms of an administrative point of view. What would happen the first time an operator is picking something up with their left hand instead of their right during an audit? Is this essentially a conflict between different philosophies? The Toyota method seems to allow for variation but once it is noticed it is analyzed and a decision is made. The general method used in ISO facilities is that deviation is frowned upon and if someone does have a better idea it needs to be studied and analyzed prior to trying it out.

Of course it is late and I'm very tired so I could just be off my rocker... Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
 

AndyN

Moved On
Off your rocker........??????????

Not likely:lol:

IMHO it's the culture that's different, not the practice of creating the work instructions or the details the operator must follow. In most 'ISO' companies, who creates the WI in the first place, do operators participate, is their feedback truly solicited?? These are only some aspects of what Toyota do differently. They also have many more years of experience of 'standard work' which allows them to focus on improvement rather than everything being 'new' each time a product is launched.

Furthermore, my understanding is that 'Manufacturing' is 'everythiing' in Toyota, which is the reverse in most NA OEM's. Basically, it doesn't matter how sweet the design is or how wonderfully the rebates/ad campaign is working, if you can't make it, you've got no product:eek:

No, I don't think you're off your rocker..........maybe everyone else is..........:biglaugh:

Andy
 

Sidney Vianna

Post Responsibly
Leader
Admin
Bulls eye

AndyN said:
IMHO it's the culture that's different,
I agree. Extremely detailed WI's would fail miserably in most organizations I know of, but at Toyota they are probably a component of an incredibly disciplined (and ever evolving) manufacturing process. Implementing a single component without the CULTURAL environment would likely backfire elsewhere.
Personally, when I see people/organizations trying to emulate the Toyota way without realizing the CULTURE behind the organization, systems and processes, I think with myself: they don't get it.
 

AndyN

Moved On
That's one of the reasons........

Sidney Vianna said:
I agree. Extremely detailed WI's would fail miserably in most organizations I know of, but at Toyota they are probably a component of an incredibly disciplined (and ever evolving) manufacturing process. Implementing a single component without the CULTURAL environment would likely backfire elsewhere.
Personally, when I see people/organizations trying to emulate the Toyota way without realizing the CULTURE behind the organization, systems and processes, I think with myself: they don't get it.
:applause:

Toyota are so 'free' with their sharing of what they do - they know none of their competition is even close to getting it.:agree1:

Thanks Sydney!

Andy
 

Caster

An Early Cover
Trusted Information Resource
Toefuzz said:
...... The Toyota method seems to allow for variation but once it is noticed it is analyzed and a decision is made. The general method used in ISO facilities is that deviation is frowned upon and if someone does have a better idea it needs to be studied and analyzed prior to trying it out. quote]
Toefuzz said:
Toefuzz

There is more to the Toyota culture than this....we are a North American plant of a Japanese company.

Our people have been to tour the head plant in Japan and notice a major difference in the people that seems to make standardized work easier for them.

When they are told to do a task, they do it that way and no other way for their entire career. If someone else takes over, this method is passed on. Nothing changes. Amazingly these methods do not have to be written down, a single verbal mention works too...

The overall feeling from our people watching a whole row of inspectors measure parts was horror and shock. A robot could not have repeated any more acurately.

This is completely against our North American nature to do it my way...we see it as soul destroying monotony, they see it as the highest form of internal discipline? Maybe - who really knows?

Look at our cultural heros, cowboy, fire fighter, top gun, self made man, Nike, the Donald....no one gonna tell us what to do or how to do it!

We have fairly detailed Work Instructions, but I won't even try to implment standardized work....it will not work here.
 

Helmut Jilling

Auditor / Consultant
Toefuzz said:
Okie doke... I've been reading all about the Toyota Production System as of late and have toured several factories that have modeled their manufacturing processes after Toyota. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a conflict between Toyota's method for creating work instructions and what is required by the ISO standard. Many of the books I've read state that Toyota has extremely detailed work instructions going so far as to tell operators how to pick up a part (right hand or left), how to look at it, at what angle a box should be, etc. The logic behind this is that everyone should be performing the job as efficiently as possible and standardizing the work instructions helps to ensure this. If an employee is found to be doing something differently they examine why and decide whether the operator needs to change or whether the work instructions need to be updated and the change implemented plant wide. I thought about trying to implement something like this in our shop and can only see negatives in terms of an administrative point of view. What would happen the first time an operator is picking something up with their left hand instead of their right during an audit? Is this essentially a conflict between different philosophies? The Toyota method seems to allow for variation but once it is noticed it is analyzed and a decision is made. The general method used in ISO facilities is that deviation is frowned upon and if someone does have a better idea it needs to be studied and analyzed prior to trying it out.

Of course it is late and I'm very tired so I could just be off my rocker... Anyone have any thoughts or comments?


An interesting idea. Why not perform a controlled test, and let us know how it turns out?
 
W

wmarhel

Most people look at Standardized Work Instructions as something they follow, and unless the product changes drastically, it may never get touched. Sound familiar to everyone?

From Toyota's perspective, it is the method to capture the current best way of performing tasks as they are known to exist. If somebody shows an improvement, than the necessary updates are made. The caveat is that if the performance of a workcell or assembly line changes, they can immediately go and verify that it is operating to the current "best method" described.

Many companies would take 10 people and have them all complete the same operations and then focus on the average. From Toyota's perspective, they focus on the best time and analyze why that one person outperformed everybody else. Is it a cultural mindset, yes. Does it require more work to operate that way, yes. At the end of the day, the results speak for themselves.

AndyN said:
Furthermore, my understanding is that 'Manufacturing' is 'everythiing' in Toyota, which is the reverse in most NA OEM's. Basically, it doesn't matter how sweet the design is or how wonderfully the rebates/ad campaign is working, if you can't make it, you've got no product:eek:

Andy makes a very valid point. The typical viewpoint of a company hierarchy is of the pyramid where the CEO sits at the top, the worker at the bottom, and everyone else somewhere in the middle. For Toyota, take that same pyramid and turn it upside down. They realize that the purpose of every other function within the company is to support manufacturing. Manufacturing produces that products which is sold, which in turn is the real money-earner for the company. There is no more important function. Engineers don’t just get to make changes willy-nilly. Imagine the reaction of a manufacturing engineer from being told “no” by a shop-floor in most companies. They would go apoplectic.

Anybody can tour a Toyota facility, I don't think I've ever heard of anybody being rejected. As it's been stated in a prior post, you can watch and try to pick things out, but can you execute? Even more importantly, can you execute to that level?

One other area that differentiates Toyota from most companies is the way products are introduced to manufacturing. For most, engineering comes up something and basically throws it over the fence, possibly a meeting or two just prior to the actually tossing. Later (weeks, months, etc.) some engineer or group holds a "kaizen" event and proclaims success through reductions of 20%, 30%, or more. Never mind the fact that it has been operating the old way for a possibly lengthy period of time.

My understanding of the Toyota process is that the gains made after the process has been in place, are typically on the magnitude of 3-4%. They do the due diligence upfront. Since most of the costs are locked in at the completion of the design, it makes the most sense to address concerns as early as possible. Hence, Toyota's 3P or Product Preparation Process. It is interesting to note that this is also the one component of Toyota which has the least amount of publicly available material.

Wayne
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jim Wynne

Leader
Admin
This is another of those confusing-the-container-for-the-thing-contained things. There is a difference between standardized production methods and the their supporting documentation. In a Toyota-like system, the latter is more like a record than a work instruction. It's documentation of the best way to do things, not a prescription for the best way to do things.
I was exposed to the concept at an early age when I went to work at McDonald's when I was in high school. I was astonished at how regimented and controlled every task was, and how the manager would have a cow if you didn't perform a task exactly the way you were trained to do it. The working of the grill and the assembly of the product was amazing in its efficiency; it allowed for a 16-year-old dope like me to be able to make 48 hamburgers (in different varieties) at once after only a few hours of experience. The Big Mac was introduced when I was there, and its production was iseamlessly integrated into the overall system. Although my immature mind saw it all as needlessly pedantic and confining, I realized after a time that standardization of work methods, (and woe be unto him who doesn't follow along) was the reason that it was possible to get the same double cheeseburger in stores thousands of miles apart.
 
S

sitapaty

Okie doke... I've been reading all about the Toyota Production System as of late and have toured several factories that have modeled their manufacturing processes after Toyota. One thing I've noticed is that there seems to be a conflict between Toyota's method for creating work instructions and what is required by the ISO standard. Many of the books I've read state that Toyota has extremely detailed work instructions going so far as to tell operators how to pick up a part (right hand or left), how to look at it, at what angle a box should be, etc. The logic behind this is that everyone should be performing the job as efficiently as possible and standardizing the work instructions helps to ensure this. If an employee is found to be doing something differently they examine why and decide whether the operator needs to change or whether the work instructions need to be updated and the change implemented plant wide. I thought about trying to implement something like this in our shop and can only see negatives in terms of an administrative point of view. What would happen the first time an operator is picking something up with their left hand instead of their right during an audit? Is this essentially a conflict between different philosophies? The Toyota method seems to allow for variation but once it is noticed it is analyzed and a decision is made. The general method used in ISO facilities is that deviation is frowned upon and if someone does have a better idea it needs to be studied and analyzed prior to trying it out.

Of course it is late and I'm very tired so I could just be off my rocker... Anyone have any thoughts or comments?
Work instructions should be for guidance only and not mandatory to follow word by word.If following WIs is mandatory we will be introducing unnecessary hurles in to a process.
The standard recommends WI where there is a possibility of affecting Product Quality.
 

AndyN

Moved On
Actually, "the standard" doesn't recommend work instructions, only that they are "available" as an option. If the work instruction isn't followed word by word, what's the point? Too many people DON'T follow the instructions word for word, because the work instructions are often poorly written or written by someone who has never done the work. Good, effective work instructions should be capable of being followed word by word!
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom