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

[tony wardle]

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!

I think Andy has it right.

My first round of WIs - I did the whole verbose thing. Explained things in detail, and like the McDonalds story had my staff follow the instruction to the T.
The problem here is common cause variation - the more things stay the same, the more they change. As a result - some may say the instruction wasnt well written - and for the most part they were not.

So, my solution was to put the detail into a training manual.

I change my WIs to a flow diagram protocol. The decision steps are the thinking steps (a diamond shape). These are the steps where human input can cause an oops.
The square blocks - or doing steps are quite vague. The doing step will refer to other documents ... to the detail.

Example - start the machine (ref training manual). Check temperature (ref specification). The WI is a general process overview with specifics being contained elsewhere.

What I figured was most important in a WI, is to tell the operator what to do when things didnt go as planned. If everything went as planned, why do you need the instruction? Chances are - operators do the same job day in and day out - they know the shortcuts - the second factory so to speak.
Those decision steps are where you need detail IMHO.

And yes, I am also a Taiichi Ohno fanboy - but - the Toyota Way is also subject to Kaizen.

 

[Kronos147]

I'm turning around the order of your comments.

I change my WIs to a flow diagram protocol.

I really like this idea. I do it often. Many prefer pictures to words.

So, my solution was to put the detail into a training manual.....

IMO, that makes it tougher. Do you audit the training manual? Doesn't that make it easy for the Work Instruction and Training Manual to get out of sync? If the Training Manual and the Work Instructions are separate, will the operator ever see the Work Instructions? Will the Auditor have a finding that Work Instructions were not available at point of use due to the lack of knowledge of the operator?

I prefer to have a work instruction, and to train to the work instruction, and to audit the process referencing the work instruction, and check that training records reflect the work instruction.

There is a balance point between too detailed and too general. If a need for work instruction has been determined, it needs to be detailed enough to get the job done.

A side note, many of us vendors are further driven by the Boeing Production Readiness Assessments and the Business Continuity Planning requirements therein. That requires a certain amount of specificity in the work instructions, IMO.

Eric

 

[tony wardle]

Do you audit the training manual? Doesn't that make it easy for the Work Instruction and Training Manual to get out of sync?

The training manual is not a closet document in our case.
Every operator earns a ''license'' to operate by doing training annually.
The training manual - although so called, is the statement of how we operate, and is ammended with lessons learned, machine, process, material changes - so its a living document.

The sync - is really just pointing to the training manual.

Example - we learn to drive, but dont need a WI to operate the vehicle everyday. We may need to retake our license annually though.
Same principle.

The other interesting thing is that here in South Africa, we have 11 different languages, and most people are not schooled in their mother tongue. I found this system to be most effective in our situation - and indeed have seen similar implemented in Germany at one of our sister companies.

We equally look at our systems and take the view - they must satisfy us first and the auditor last.

 

[John Broomfield]

We tend to think of work instructions being a document that instructs a member of a process team how to complete a task.

But that type of document could more usefully be a record of the best known way of completing a task.

The former are audit criteria. The latter are used to manage knowledge.

Procedures (the documented kind) are used this way too.

Better to train people well and to invite them to discover new and improved ways than for the "we know best department" to stifle innovation.

 

[tony wardle]

Better to train people well and to invite them to discover new and improved ways than for the "we know best department" to stifle innovation.

Well said.