deviation from that standard. As we have seen, there are many different speci-
fications, procedures, and requirements within every work area. It is virtually
impossible for every employee to remember all of these, and a written descrip-
tion of each in a notebook would be impractical for instant recognition.
One common condition is that people believe they “know” the standards, and
any visual representation is redundant and unnecessary. Upon closer evaluation it
is simple to determine the true awareness of standards. Ask different employees to
explain the specific method to be followed. Is it possible for you to determine
whether it’s happening as it’s supposed to be? The case example below on paint
line loading illustrates that without the ability to quickly and easily verify adher-
ence to standards, the abnormality will not be detected and will continue.
The following case example illustrates what happens when standards are
“known” but are not visually displayed.
Case Example: Creating Visual Standards with a Paint
Line Loading Pattern
This case example refers to a paint line that has three different color
paint booths. The main line branches into three lines to supply all three
booths. Given this branching from one main line, it is critical to the flow
of product for the correct mix of product color and model to be loaded
on the line to prevent overloading any booth and clogging the line.
Observation of the paint line (standing in the circle) revealed that
product flow to one or two paint booths was often blocked by an over-
load at the other. This caused the entire loading process to stop, and the
total line stoppage time was substantiated by the system data. This issue
was especially critical since the paint system was the constraint operation
for the entire facility (it is the only operation in the plant through which
allproduct passes), and the system was above maximum capacity.
The paint department manager and the loading employees agreed
that the product had to be mixed properly on the line and even agreed
on what the mix was supposed to be. Each person noted, however, that
“they” don’t always follow the rules. (The mysterious “they.” Who are
“they”?) A closer review of the agreed-upon mix revealed that the
desired method (not a defined standard yet) was vague and general.
It included descriptions such as, “No more than two of this type per
hour,” and “This product is supposed to follow one of these three
models,” and “No more than six of this color per hour.” It was clear
that trying to memorize this proposed sequence would be nearly
impossible (there were many variables). If it were possible to memo-
rize, it’s likely that the only people who could accomplish that would