The beauty of standards is there are so many to choose from.
I find it most interesting that when a process or way of doing something is found, we write it down as a “standard”. Now we have convinced ourselves this is the best way to get the same results every time.
Which is basically true.
And, most often this creating of a standard gives all those involved a “warm and fuzzy feeling” that all is well and life can return to the “norm”. But what is that “norm”? Is it “business as usual”? What happens when a new variable comes along (translation: more poo-poo becomes fouled in the impeller)? Do we always go back and adjust for what allowed the excrement to hit the blades? Actually many times NOT!
You see adjusting the original standard my have some negative impact on the “warm fuzzy”, in fact it may even become a “cold prickly feeling” that someone was not adequate in their job. SO, let’s create a new “standard” for when the condition is present that allowed the impeller fouling.
Now there doesn’t that feel better?
We haven’t accused anyone and we now feel good about keeping the impellers clean when this condition exists because we have a new “standard” for this particular condition.
This may seem cynical in the evaluation because of all the quotation marks (you English Lit. types give me a break). My point is that over time the number of standards become difficult to manage, not to mention remembering what to do.
The better solution may be to openly examine the original standard and create decision points that examine if the impeller fouling condition may exist. Oh I know that appears to add complexity but it allows a controlled flexibility that streamlines instead of bloating by adding new standards. This also clears up any confusion between the “newbies” trained to the latest standards and the “old heads” that have learned how to work under older standards.
Until next time…. “There is peace in realizing not all problems require your solution.”