Is That 5S Board Really 5S?

A colorful board. Clearly outlined spaces. Every tool hanging neatly in its place.

It looks impressive. It photographs well. And it is often introduced as the first step in implementing 5S.

But before we celebrate, we should pause and ask:

Is this really 5S—or have we simply made unnecessary tools look organized?

The value of a 5S board is not in its appearance. It is in how it helps us question what we need, support standardized work, eliminate Muda, and generate further kaizen.

Start With Necessity, Not Arrangement

The first question is not, “Where should we hang these tools?”

It is, “Do we need all these tools?”

Taiichi Ohno emphasized eliminating unnecessary items as the essence of “Seiri,” the first S. Yet we sometimes move directly to arranging tools without challenging why they are there.

Are all of them actually used?

If the answer is, “We don’t know,” the next step is observation—not labeling. We need to understand which tools are required, for which tasks, and how often. If we cannot answer those questions, our understanding of the work and its standards is insufficient.

If the answer is, “Yes, we use every tool,” we should ask another question:

“Why do we need so many?”

Different products may require different tools. That may explain the current situation, but it should not end the discussion. It may reveal an opportunity for value analysis and value engineering—VA/VE—to simplify designs, standardize components, or reduce variation.

A tool board can organize the consequences of complexity without addressing the complexity itself.

Do not simply accept a large collection of tools. Challenge the need for it.

Organize Around the Work, Not the Display

What determines the order of tools on the board?

Size? Shape? Symmetry?

Arranging tools from smallest to largest may look attractive. But what does that arrangement mean to the person doing the work?

I used to visit a dentist who arranged instruments in the sequence of use. Before beginning, the dentist laid them out in the order required for the procedure. After using an instrument, the dentist placed it in a used-instrument bin. When a procedure required the same type of instrument at multiple stages, duplicates were prepared.

From my perspective as a patient, the work flowed smoothly.

Since that dentist retired, I have been searching for a similar experience. At other practices, I sometimes hear metal instruments clinking as someone searches for the next tool while my mouth remains wide open. I have also experienced problems requiring return visits.

That does not establish that tool organization caused those problems. But searching during a procedure is an observable interruption—and a reason to examine how the work is prepared.

The principle extends well beyond dentistry:

The arrangement of tools should reflect the sequence of work, not a preference for a tidy display.

A good arrangement helps people perform the right task in the right order. It supports standardized work rather than merely decorating the workplace.

Question the Return Motion Before Blaming Discipline

When a tool’s outline is empty, a familiar explanation follows:

“The worker did not have the discipline to return it.”

Perhaps the tool was not returned. But that observation does not tell us whether the work was well designed.

Is returning the tool a value-adding motion? Does it require extra walking, reaching, or interruption?

We often recognize a worker’s return walk as Muda. We try to position the end of one work cycle near the beginning of the next so that a separate return journey becomes unnecessary.

The same thinking should apply to tools.

Can the tool’s storage location be placed where its use ends—and where the next use begins? Can the work sequence or workstation layout reduce the need for a separate return motion?

Not every return can be eliminated. Safety, cleaning, maintenance, and shared use may impose real requirements. But those requirements should be understood and designed into the work.

Before demanding more discipline, ask whether the system makes the correct action easy.

Make the Board a Starting Point for Kaizen

A completed board is not a completed improvement.

Its purpose should be to expose the next question: Why is this tool never used? Why is that one always missing? Why does the operator leave the workstation? Why do different products require so many variations?

If the board generates no further questions, it may be functioning as a display rather than an improvement tool.

The objective is not to implement a board and declare 5S complete. It is to deepen our understanding of the work and create opportunities to improve it.

A meaningful 5S board may eventually hold fewer tools. Its arrangement may change as standardized work improves. Better product or process design may eliminate the need for some tools altogether.

That is progress—even if the board becomes less impressive to photograph.

The real test is not, “Does everything have a place?”

It is, “Have we challenged why each item is needed, how it supports the work, and what Muda we should eliminate next?”