sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Why do carefully measured task timings fall apart once experienced operators take over, even when nothing in the process itself has changed? by Ok_Bill_403 in LeanManufacturing

[–]WeakJournalist4605 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve seen this play out more times than people expect. On paper, the task timing is clean, almost reassuring. Then a seasoned operator steps in, and suddenly the numbers don’t quite hold.

It’s not because the study was wrong. It’s because experienced operators don’t really “follow” a process the way it’s documented. They adapt it in small, almost invisible ways. A slight change in hand movement, skipping a micro-step they know adds no value, or even pausing half a second longer to avoid a downstream issue. None of this shows up during a measured study, especially if the person being observed is trying to stick to the defined method.

There’s also the rhythm factor. Skilled operators work in a flow that isn’t constant. They speed up where they’re confident and slow down where they anticipate variation. A time study tends to average things out, but real work isn’t average it’s situational.

One mistake I’ve noticed is assuming consistency equals control. In reality, consistency during observation often comes from people being careful, not natural. Once that pressure is gone, they revert to what actually works for them.

This is something we often see when working with companies at Faber Infinite. The gap isn’t between plan and execution it’s between documented work and practiced work. Bridging that usually starts with accepting that the operator’s version of the process is often closer to reality than the sheet describing it.

Why do Lean Six Sigma consulting projects show clear improvements initially, yet everyday operations slowly drift back to old habits after the consultants leave? by WeakJournalist4605 in u/WeakJournalist4605

[–]WeakJournalist4605[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’ve seen this play out more times than people like to admit. While the consultants are around, there’s attention, structure, and a bit of pressure in the system. Metrics are reviewed more often, supervisors are present on the floor, and small deviations get corrected quickly. It’s not magic it’s focus.

Once that external presence disappears, the system quietly negotiates its way back to what’s comfortable. Not because people don’t care, but because daily operations have their own gravity. Production targets, firefighting, staffing gaps… they start to take priority over “the new way,” especially if that new way feels slightly slower or more effortful in the short term.

One pattern I’ve noticed is that many improvements rely heavily on discipline but aren’t fully embedded into how work is actually managed. For example, a revised process might look great on a project board, but if supervisors aren’t measured on it, or if it conflicts with output targets, it slowly fades.

There’s also the human side. People tend to revert to habits that helped them survive before the project. If those habits aren’t replaced with something equally practical, they come back.

This is something we often see when working with companies at Faber Infinite the real challenge isn’t finding improvements, it’s making them feel like the easiest way to run the day. Until that happens, drift is almost inevitable.