"Continuous improvement" is not a catch - all label: First, clarify the essential boundary between "error correction" and "improvement"
When faced with the problems feedback from customers, the first reaction should not be "We will make continuous improvements" - "Correcting errors" and "Making continuous improvements" follow completely different logics:
- Error correction is plugging the leaks: For errors that have deviated from the standard (such as product dimensions exceeding tolerances or function failures), it is necessary to immediately stop the erroneous actions, adjust the process, or replace the materials. The purpose is to bring the results back within the standard line. For example, if the diameter of a batch of parts is too large due to the wear of the machine tool cutter, this is error correction. The cutter should be replaced immediately and the parts should be re - processed, rather than delaying the problem with continuous improvement.
- Improvement means upgrading: On the basis of fully meeting the standards, optimize the efficiency, accuracy, or experience (for example, the original tolerance of ±0.1mm meets the requirements, but you want to narrow it down to ±0.05mm to enhance the product competitiveness). This is the real scenario of continuous improvement — the prerequisite for improvement is having done it right, and then pursuing doing it better.
Confusing the two will lead to "the problem remains unsolved and there is no direction for improvement": If the product is already substandard but one says "continuous improvement", in essence, it is an evasion of the responsibility to "correct the error immediately"; if the problem is "wanting to do better" but no standard is set first, the improvement will turn into "futile efforts".
Standardized work is the "reference" for continuous improvement: without standards, there is no starting point for "improvement"
The core of continuous improvement is "comparison" - comparing the current situation with the target, identifying the gaps and making optimizations. And standardized operations are the "baseline of the current situation":
- Without standards, it's impossible to define "what is good". For example, when producing a piece of equipment, if the operating steps, time, and quality requirements are all "based on experience", A finishes the assembly in 30 minutes today, B takes 40 minutes tomorrow, and C omits some parts the day after tomorrow. It's simply impossible to judge "which links can be optimized" – just like without a ruler, you can't measure "how much you've grown taller".
- Standardization means "fixing effective practices": Write the verified operations that can produce stable results (such as "install the base first → then fasten the screws → finally calibrate the level") into documents, so that everyone can execute according to the same rules. In this way, we can identify "which actions are redundant" and "which steps can be done more quickly" — for example, can the time for installing the base be reduced from 5 minutes to 4 minutes? Can the method for calibrating the level be more efficient?
Standardization is not "restraining creativity", but "fixing the right things and then releasing creativity for optimization". Many enterprises believe that "development is possible without standardization". In essence, they are relying on "luck" to maintain their operations. Just because there are no problems today doesn't mean there won't be any tomorrow. Once employees leave and their experience is lost, problems will break out. Standardization can transform "experience" into a "system", making improvements replicable and sustainable.
The "core framework" of standardized operations: Transform "vague experience" into "clear rules"
Standardized work is not about "simply writing down a few processes", but rather encompasses the key elements of the "entire operation chain". The aim is to eliminate "human - induced variations":
Operation steps: Clearly define "what to do first and what to do next" (for example, when welding, it is necessary to "clean the weld bead first → preheat next → finally weld"), so as to avoid defects caused by skipping or missing steps.
Operation time: Calculate the reasonable time through motion analysis (such as the "two - hand operation method") (for example, the standard time for labeling is 10 seconds) to avoid "loafing" or "rushing to meet the schedule".
Quality inspection: Specify "what to inspect, what tools to use, and what the acceptance criteria are" (for example, when inspecting the appearance, a magnifying glass must be used to check for scratches. A scratch is considered acceptable if its length is ≤ 0.5mm) to ensure that no defective products are released.
Equipment parameters: Set the key parameters of fixed equipment (such as the temperature of 180℃ and pressure of 5MPa for an injection molding machine) to avoid product fluctuations caused by "adjusting parameters based on intuition".
Visual aids: Use pictures or videos to demonstrate key actions (such as the angle of screwing and the way of holding tools) to reduce the learning cost for new employees.
The value of these contents lies in transforming "experience" into "transferable knowledge". For example, in the past, when an apprentice learned from a master, the operation might be distorted due to the master's habitual biases. Now, by "following the documents", no matter who performs the task, the results will be the same.
Standardization is the "stabilizer" of quality: from "putting out fires" to "preventing fires"
90% of the root causes of quality problems are human - induced variations — errors caused by non - standard operations. The functions of standardized operations are:
Quickly locate problems: When a product has defects (such as out-of-tolerance dimensions), directly check the "standardized documents": Are there any missing operation steps? Are there any errors in the equipment parameters? Has the quality inspection been carried out? For example, a certain enterprise found that a welded part was cracked. After checking the standards, it was found that "the preheating time was not the required 5 minutes but only 2 minutes". After adjustment, the defect immediately disappeared.
Maintain stable quality: Fix the "qualified practices" through standardization to ensure that the daily product quality is within the standard range. For example, before a certain electronics factory implemented standardization, the defective product rate was 3%. After implementation, it dropped to 0.5% - it's not about "improving something", but about "always doing the right thing right", reducing rework and scrap caused by "doing things one way today and another way tomorrow".
"Stability" of quality is more important than "excellence" — customers need "to meet the standards every time" rather than "meeting the standards occasionally and failing to meet them at other times". Standardization is the tool to achieve "stability".
"Gradual optimization" of standardized driving working hours: from "relying on hard work" to "relying on science"
The reduction of single-piece working hours is not "making employees work overtime", but "through standardized cycle optimization".
Step 1: Set standards: Use a stopwatch to time or conduct motion analysis to calculate the reasonable single-piece working time (for example, the standard time for assembling a part is 2 minutes).
Step 2: Practice until proficient: Employees should operate according to the standards. After becoming proficient, identify "waste" (for example, if it takes 3 steps to get a tool, relocate it within reach to reduce the steps by 1).
Step 3: Re-standardize: Fix the optimized working hours (e.g., 1 minute and 40 seconds) as the new standard.
Step 4: Further optimization: Continue to find the next waste point (for example, change the time spent waiting for machine processing to doing other processes simultaneously).
Through such a cycle, working hours will be "progressively shortened". For example, if the original manufacturing cycle was 10 days, it can be reduced to 8 days after three rounds of optimization. Each round of optimization is based on "standards", so there won't be efficiency fluctuations caused by "constant changes". The improvement in efficiency is not a "sudden change", but rather "each step is a little better than the previous one".
Standardization is the "shield" of ergonomics: from "post - event treatment" to "pre - event prevention"
The core of ergonomics is to "avoid cumulative injuries" (such as tenosynovitis and low back pain), and standardized operations are the "tools" for identifying these risks:
Fixed actions: Write repeated actions into the standards (for example, "When handling heavy objects, a trolley must be used instead of bending down to lift them").
Risk identification: By observing standard actions, it was found that "frequently raising the hands above the shoulders" could lead to shoulder injuries. Therefore, it was changed to "using a robotic arm to assist in lifting materials".
Replace harmful actions: Change "using a manual wrench to turn screws" to "using an electric wrench" to reduce repeated stress on the wrists.
Without standardization, actions are "random". Employees may bend over to lift objects today and squat down to do so tomorrow. It is simply impossible to detect the risk of "repeated bending". By the time employees experience lower back pain, it is already "post-treatment", which incurs higher costs. Standardization, on the other hand, can "identify and solve problems in advance", eliminating the "risk of work-related injuries" in the bud.
Standardization is the "evidence chain" for handling customer complaints: making improvements "well - founded"
When customers make complaints (such as "slow delivery" and "unstable quality"), standardized operations can provide "support" for improvement.
In response to the claim of "unstable quality": Present the standardized operation documents and state that "Our operations are unified." Then, analyze "Is there any omission in the standard? For example, is there a certain link not covered in the quality inspection?" After optimizing the standard, give feedback to the customer that "We have adjusted the standard and can now ensure stable quality."
Response to "slow delivery": Present the standard working hours table and explain that "the original standard time was 2 minutes, and now it has been optimized to 1 minute and 40 seconds, with the manufacturing cycle shortened by 10%", so that customers can see that "the improvement is based on a stable foundation, not a hasty decision".
Without standardization, dealing with customer complaints will lack confidence. For example, when a customer says, "Why is it slower this time than last time?", one can only say, "The employees didn't do a good job." However, with standardization, one can say, "We have optimized the operation steps and it is now more efficient." Standardization is not a "tool to deal with customers" but the "foundation to truly solve problems".
Conclusion: The "foundation" for continuous improvement will always be standardization
All continuous improvements must be based on "standardized operations"
- Without standards, there will be no reference for "improvement".
- Without standards, improvement will be "fragmented and non - replicable".
- Without standards, dealing with problems is like "putting out fires rather than taking a systematic approach".
Just like building a house, the firmer the foundation, the higher the house can be built. Standardized operation is the "foundation" for continuous improvement. First, lay a solid foundation, and then build the "improvement" floors on top. Only in this way can the improvement be "sustainable and effective". Don't wait for problems to break out before thinking about standardization. Turn standardization into "a part of daily work" so that every improvement has a "root".