Workplace & standardProzanta Method Standard · v1.0 · juli 2026

Standard work

Standard Work

Standard work documents the currently best, agreed way of performing a task — so precisely that deviations can be seen, training becomes consistent, and improvement has a fixed starting point.

2-4 hours per task + a validation round2-3 of those who do the task + possibly the team leader

Use the method when

  • The same task is performed differently by different people — with different results
  • Training depends on who is teaching (the lottery of side-by-side training)
  • Critical knowledge lives in a few people’s heads — and needs to move to the system
  • Before any improvement effort: without a standard there is nothing to improve from

Don’t use it when

  • The task is genuinely creative/unique each time — then standardise the frame, not the content
  • As an instrument of control against employees — then the standard becomes paper, and practice becomes something else

Before you start

1

Those who do the work write the standard with you — not just the engineer

2

There is agreement that there SHOULD be one shared method (have that conversation first)

3

The process is reasonably stable — chaotic processes are stabilised before standardisation

The standard

How to do it — step by step

01

Observe the actual variants

1-2 timer

Watch the task performed by 2-3 different people and note the differences — order, grip, checks, time spent. The differences are not errors; they are the raw material. At each difference ask: why do you do it that way?

02

Choose the best known method — together

1 time

For each sub-element, the team chooses the method that is best on quality, safety and time — in that order. Disagreements are settled by trying both and measuring, not by seniority. The result is the currently best known method — not the perfect one.

03

Document short and visual

1 time

One page per task where possible: numbered main steps, key points (what is critical and WHY) and photos rather than text. The template’s three columns: What — How — Why. The Why column is the most important: it carries understanding, not just instruction.

04

Validate with someone who wasn’t involved

30-60 min

A colleague who didn’t take part in creating it performs the task alone using the standard. Every place where they hesitate or ask is an error in the standard — not in the colleague. Adjust and repeat until it holds on its own.

05

Place the standard at the work — and train everyone

15-30 min pr. person

The standard hangs where the task is done — not in a folder system. Everyone who performs the task is trained on it (including the experienced), and the training is signed off on a competence matrix.

06

Keep the standard alive

løbende

A fixed rule: if someone finds a better method, it is tested, and the standard is updated with a new version and date. A standard unrevised for a year is audited: is it still the best known method — or has practice quietly slipped elsewhere?

The classic mistakes

How it goes wrong in practice — and this is where most implementations part ways.

The standard is written by people who don’t do the work

Then it describes how the task ought to be, not how it succeeds in reality — and the floor files it politely away.

Too long and too detailed

A 12-page instruction is never read again after day one. Main steps + key points + why. Details that aren’t critical don’t belong in the standard.

A standard without a deviation routine

If no routine (audit, gemba, board) detects that practice deviates from the standard, they drift apart within weeks — and the standard becomes a historical source.

Related standards

The standard is free. The anchoring is the craft.

The method only works when it becomes daily routines and leadership behaviour. The operations check shows in 4 minutes where your operations stand — and what should come first.