Challenge should always be made to what should be happening, not what is happening.

One can and should feel conflicted in this statement. Paradox should arise in the mind.

My teachers made mention of this conflict all of the time…

Internal Struggle ensues and the mind becomes the captor! Must brakthrough!

Challenge all standards even if they have achieved basic stability. KAIZEN spirit has taken hold.

Respectfully
Todd McCann

Thinking in terms of “daily measures” is way to slow. The check should be execution for every iteration. The daily measures will take care of themselves if the process is driving toward robust perfection. It doesn’t have to get to perfection, just driving to get there.

30 day audit? Too long. What kept it from working THIS TIME. Andon / stop / call / wait. By the time 30 days has gone by, the whole thing can have changed and the reasons why will be long gone.

Kaizen events should be making the big change on day 1, or even ahead of time, then the main work is on stabilizing the new process – fixing all of the imperfections and things that nobody thought of when the big change was made.

Sources of instability that drag your process off what you thought will kill it in a week, much less 30 days.

The way I would break this down is:

PLAN:
Define, first, what exactly this process is supposed to deliver to the customer. That may mean learning who the customer really is. (It is NOT automatically the next process in the chain, it is the next process that depends on a defect-free outcome of your work.) Define what a “defect-free outcome” really is, not just in the product, but in the delivery as well. What is “on time” what is “late” what is “early.” What is the right amount, right place, etc.

Then define what would be the ideal process to deliver that defect free outcome.
What steps must be carried out?
This is the first pass at establishing a standard.

As the ideal process steps are defined, also define how you will verify that each step is carried out the way expected, and that the outcome of each step is as expected. This is “building quality into the process” at a very low level.. at least the very first stages of it.

DO/CHECK:
TRY to carry out the process in the ideal way. Whenever there is something in the way of doing that, STOP.

ACT:
What got in the way? Fix it.

Cycle again – each time, driving the process toward perfection, and if not perfection, at least robustness.

Where this differs:
I think STP is usually far to vague and high level. Just asking the team what is the “current situation” does not necessarily get them focusing on the things that stop them from performing, rather, you get a list of things that bother them a lot. Nor does it get them thinking of “problem” in terms of “departure from the ideal or preferred way”

The idea is to measure improvement, not as progress from the current baseline, but as closing the gap toward perfection. Go half way, then go half way again, then again.

The reason to capture the current baseline is to better understand the reasons for the gap.

So – “look for waste” or asking “How can this process be better?” doesn’t really get people to this place. Instead the question is “What keeps us from doing this perfectly?” That question disarms people and allows them to focus on problems instead of defending why things have to be the way they are.