TIME STANDARDS:DOCUMENTING, USING, AND MAINTAINING STANDARDS

DOCUMENTING, USING, AND MAINTAINING STANDARDS

3.1. Documenting Standards

Standards are part of a goal-setting system, and control is essential to any goal-setting system.

The more detailed the data, the more detailed the possible analysis; you can always consolidate data after they is gathered, but you can’t break the data down if they are consolidated before they are gathered. Computerization permits detailed recording and thus analysis of downtime, machine breakdown, setup time, and so on. With bar coding of parts and computer terminals at workstations, it is feasible to record times for each individual part. For example, for product Y, operator 24 completed operation 7 on part 1 at 10:05, part 2 at 10.08, and so on. More commonly, however, you would just record that for product Y, operator 24 started operation 7 at 10:00 and completed the 25 units at 11:50. Least useful would be recording, for product Y, that all operations on 25 units were completed on Tuesday. Companies tend to develop elaborate codes for types of downtime, quality problems, and so on. Be careful about downtime reporting: it is easy to abuse.

3.2. Using Standards

3.2.1. Reports

Variance is the difference between standard performance and actual performance. Generally, attention is focused on large negative variances so that impediments to productivity can be corrected. Perform- ance should be fed back to both workers and management at least weekly. Daily reports highlight delays and production problems; monthly reports smooth the fluctuations and show long-term trends.

3.2.2. Consequences of Not Making Standard

If the standard is used to determine an acceptable day’s work or pay incentive wages, the question arises, What if a person doesn’t produce at a standard rate?

For a typical low-task standard such as methods time measurement (MTM), over 99% of the population should be able to achieve standard, especially after allowances are added. The relevant question is not what workers are able to do but what they actually do.

Comparisons of performance vs. standard should be over a longer time period (such as a week) rather than a short period (such as a day).

The first possibility to consider is learning. As noted above, for cognitive work, the first cycle time may be as much as 13 times MTM standard and, for motor work, 2.5 times MTM standard. If a new operator’s performance is plotted vs. the typical learning curve for that job, you can see whether the operator is making satisfactory progress. For example, Jane might be expected to achieve 50% of standard the first week, 80% the second week, 90% the third week, 95% the fourth week, and 100% the fifth week. Lack of satisfactory progress implies a need for training (i.e., the operator may not be using a good method).

If Jane is a permanent, experienced worker, the below-standard performance could be considered ‘‘excused’’ or ‘‘nonexcused.’’ Excused failure is for temporary situations—bad parts from the supplier, back injuries, pregnancy for females, and so forth. For example, ‘‘Employees returning to work from Worker’s Compensation due to a loss-of-time accident in excess of 30 days will be given consider- ation based upon the medical circumstances of each individual case.’’

Nonexcused performances are those for which the worker is considered capable of achieving the standard but did not make it.

Table 16 shows some example penalties. Most firms have a ‘‘forget’’ feature; for example, one month of acceptable performance drops you down a step. The use of an established discipline pro- cedure allows workers to self-select themselves for a job. The firm can have only minimal preem- ployment screening and thus not be subject to discrimination charges.

Standards are based on an eight-hour day, but people work longer and shorter shifts. Because most standards tend to be loose, people can pace themselves and output / hr tends to be constant over the shift. I do not recommend changing the standard for shifts other than eight hours.

The level at which discipline takes place is negotiable between the firm and the union. For example, it might be 95% of standard—that is, as long as workers perform above 95% of standard, they are considered satisfactory. However, this tends to get overall performance slightly higher—say 98%. The best long-range strategy probably is to set discipline at 100% of standard. Anything less will give a long-term loss in production, especially if a measured daywork system is used instead of incentives.

Firms can use several strategies to improve the group’s performance and reduce output restrictions. Basically, they allow the employees as well as the firm to benefit from output over 100%.

The primary technique is to give money for output over 100%. A 1% increase in pay for a 1% increase in output is the prevalent system.

Another alternative is to give the worker time off for output over 100%. For example, allow individuals to ‘‘bank’’ weekly hours earned over 100%. Most people will soon run up a positive balance to use as ‘‘insurance.’’ This can be combined with a plan in which all hours in the bank over (say) 20 hr are given as scheduled paid time off. This tends to drop absenteeism because workers can use the paid time off for personal reasons.

3.3. Maintaining Standards (Auditing)

A standard can restrict productivity if it has not been updated because workers will produce only to the obsolete standard and not to their capabilities.

What to audit? To keep the work-measurement system up to date, accurate, and useful, MIL- STD-1567A says the audit should determine (1) the validity of the prescribed coverage, (2) the percentage of type I and II coverage, (3) use of labor standards, (4) accuracy of reporting, (5) attainment of goals, and (6) results of corrective actions regarding variance analysis.

How often to audit? Auditing should be on a periodic schedule. A good procedure is to set an expiration date on each standard at the time it is set; MIL-STD-1567 says annually. A rule of thumb is to have it expire at 24 months if the application is <50 hr / year, at 12 months if between 50 and 600 hr / year, and at 6 months if over 600 hr / year. Then, when the standard expires, and if it is still an active job, an audit is made. If it is not active, the standard will be converted from permanent to temporary. Then, if the job is resumed, the temporary can be used for a short period (e.g., 30 days) until a new permanent standard is set. An advantage of a known expiration date is that if a standard is audited (and perhaps tightened), the operator will not feel picked on.

If the resources for auditing are not sufficient for doing all the audits required, use the Pareto principle. Audit the ‘‘mighty few’’ and don’t audit the ‘‘insignificant many.’’ However, when the standard on one of the insignificant many passes the expiration date, convert the permanent standard to temporary.

A published set of rules ensures that everyone is treated fairly. Most organizations have a similar set of rules for tardiness and absenteeism.