tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post1267982268240774250..comments2023-08-03T11:16:11.202-04:00Comments on Got Boondoggle?: Setting Standard TimeMike Wroblewskihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03451872136821100772noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post-8446011754263109772007-05-04T15:15:00.000-04:002007-05-04T15:15:00.000-04:00One way we might answer what is the best way to se...One way we might answer what is the best way to set a time standard is, first, to define what a "standard" is. As an industrial engineer early in my career, we defined a time standard as "the work pace that can be maintained by an average, well-trained employee all day long without undue fatigue while producing acceptable quality work." To this,like you Mike, we added a personal and miscellaneous allowance of 15%. And, like you, I won't go into that now.<BR/><BR/>Using the above definition of a standard, the time to complete a task can be seen to be influenced by three basic factors: 1) skill, 2) effort and 3) method. This means that any variation in the times an engineer may find in a conducting a time study could be the result of any (or combination)of these three factors. It's not only method which is the focus of Lean. <BR/><BR/>In reviewing the approaches you outline for setting standards, a very powerful one seems to be missing ...performance leveling. The weakness we all experience in using actual times from a time study to set a standard is that we are left with guessing at what a fair and accurate time expectation should be. As you outline, is it the lowest repeatable time, the average time or shortest observed time? There are even other approaches including upper quartile and modal time. <BR/><BR/>Using the above definition of a standard, it's only coincidental, then, that the true standard is any of these. This is where performance leveling comes in. With performance leveling, you observe and capture the actual time each employee takes to perform a task. This time is then adjusted (i.e., leveled)to reflect 100% performance. For example, if an employee takes 5.00 minutes to perform a task during a time study and you access the performance level of the employee at 85%, the time for the task at 100% would be 4.25 minutes (5.00 X .85 = 4.25). Using this approach eliminates the guesswork. However, that said, it takes specific training to learn to effectively access employee performance level. <BR/><BR/>In the above definition of a standard there is also a key assumption...that everyone is following the same method. This assumption aligns perfectly with Lean in that Lean suggests standardizing work first.<BR/>This also gets us back to another fundamental issue with setting time standards. What's the basic purpose of determining the time to perform a task? If it's going to be used to evaluate the performance of an individual employee there are only two standard-setting approaches that result in the accuracy needed: 1) leveled time study (described above) and 2) pre-determined time systems. Without going into detail, for those who are unfamiliar, PDTS are dictionaries of pre-established times for performing specific cycles of activity already leveled at 100% performance and are +/- 5% of true accuracy. These are powerful tools not only for establishing standards but, because of how they are applied, in streamlining methods. Two examples of popular PDTS used in manufacturing today are Method Time Measurement (MTM) and Maynard Operation Sequence Technigue (MOST). There are even ones especially developed for white collar tasks including Advanced Office Controls (AOC), Modular Arrangement of Predetermined Time Systems (MODAPTS).<BR/><BR/>I've gone on too long so I'll quickly summarize my opinions. If the point of establishing a time standard is simply to get a reasonable understanding of the time it's currently taking to perform a task or process so that improvement efforts can be launched, "average time" should be all that is needed. However, if the time will be used to measure individual performance then a more robust and accurate approach is definitely called for.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post-35274874029965227252007-02-13T23:30:00.000-05:002007-02-13T23:30:00.000-05:00Hi Karen,Way back when, in a galaxy far, far away,...Hi Karen,<BR/><BR/>Way back when, in a galaxy far, far away, I used to be one of those shirt-and-tie Industrial Engineers that trolled the manufacturing floor looking for jobs to time. We may have been menacing to some however I tried to be open, honest and cooperative with any person I timed to set a fair and accurate standard. Once we started down the lean path, we did teach the ways of the jedi timestudy masters to all kazien team members to set their own standard time. The shopfloor teams did extremely well with this new skill.Mike Wroblewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451872136821100772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post-26419906518657974202007-02-13T23:21:00.000-05:002007-02-13T23:21:00.000-05:00Thanks for the comment Ron. Yes, It is an extremel...Thanks for the comment Ron. Yes, It is an extremely aggressive approach that pushes us to the edge of our comfort zone. But the concept is the absolute elimination of waste.Mike Wroblewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03451872136821100772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post-79847614032310417412007-02-10T15:05:00.000-05:002007-02-10T15:05:00.000-05:00Not to address the correct method of calculating s...Not to address the correct method of calculating standard time, one source of genius in lean is to train shopfloor teams to conduct their own time studies. An IE can assist them until they acquire enough skills, but it's much different when a shopfloor improvement team decides to analyze their process than when the proverbial shirt-and-tie IE stood by menacingly with a stopwatch.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06463767332463542390noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16711894.post-72434710982340486092007-02-10T14:26:00.000-05:002007-02-10T14:26:00.000-05:00Great blog Mike. This topic comes up lots. When ...Great blog Mike. This topic comes up lots. When I have my Six Sigma hat on I get worried with Ohno's method due to fear of loose measurement systems. Perhaps instead of simply accepting the one lowest time we should verify our measurement system and measurement process is robust. But I do like the aggressive approach going with the lowest number gives us. It says, "let's aim for the best and quit being scared." Nice blog - as usual.Ron Pereirahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02180857649824476044noreply@blogger.com