3 ms·

> This just takes for granted that throughput is more important than latency. It's not about throughput or latency. It's about cost. Shipping is _way_ cheaper

by bkor 6y ago

> This just takes for granted that throughput is more important than latency. It's not about throughput or latency. It's about cost. Shipping is _way_ cheaper than anything else. Trains are quicker, but also more expensive. Barge/Train is again cheaper than a truck, but in various cases only a truck is a good option. > I also think that is true generally today It's not true in the slightest. If something needs to arrive quicker another modality can be used. What's important is than it is predictable. Meaning, something arrives every week around the same day. Latency can cover up scheduling issues. It's much cheaper and better to control the scheduling issue.

kqr 6y ago
I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing or not. Yes, currently shipping by sea is cheaper, even if it means sending several containers' full of stuff to a place that doesn't need them by the time they arrive. Or worse, sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere in anticipation of them maybe needing it soon -- because by the time they need it, it's too late to start sending it. This is of course very wasteful, and the high latency is the source of the waste. But it still comes out ahead in the books. What I'm saying is that hopefully maybe in the future the parameters of the equation look different, and it's no longer sensible to send huge batches of things just to patch over delivery problems relating to latency. So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches, except on a global scale.
- bkor 6y ago
  > Or worse, sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere in anticipation of them maybe needing it soon You're again making a lot of assumptions here. What do you mean with "sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere"? Similarly with "This is of course very wasteful". First you assume that companies often send too much stuff, then use that as a basis that there's waste. You haven't substantiated the first assumption! > and the high latency is the source of the waste. Again, this entirely depends on the business (commodity) and circumstances! Further, you take this as a given, while you did _not_ substantiate this at all. For loads of commodities the time spent on the vessel does _not_ matter. For others it might be a mix. Sometimes it's important that things arrive on a regular basis. Sometimes it's not important. > So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches Lean manufacturing car companies are happily using container vessel to transport their car parts. I've already mentioned the latency argument is missing the point quite a bit: the scheduling is important. A factory that runs out of parts is way more important than the 2 weeks vs 4-6 weeks. If the 2 weeks cannot be trusted upon it won't work. Further, substantiate your assumptions. I don't see anything referencing a particular business, the costs associated, etc. Just guesswork.
  - moftz 6y ago
    Lead time is usually not a huge issue as long as the lead time is consistent. 3 days or 3 months is usually not a problem since you can build you manufacturing process around a given lead time. The cost of transport is going to be much more of a concern. If it takes one month to get a driveshaft in and three months to get windshields, you just order the windshields a couple months earlier than the driveshafts since you won't need the windshields until the last bit of the assembly line. Lead times are an issue for perishable goods though. If your pomegranates are going to be rotten by the time they arrive in port, whats the point.

by bkor 6y ago

kqr 6y ago

I'm not sure if we're saying the same thing or not. Yes, currently shipping by sea is cheaper, even if it means sending several containers' full of stuff to a place that doesn't need them by the time they arrive. Or worse, sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere in anticipation of them maybe needing it soon -- because by the time they need it, it's too late to start sending it. This is of course very wasteful, and the high latency is the source of the waste. But it still comes out ahead in the books. What I'm saying is that hopefully maybe in the future the parameters of the equation look different, and it's no longer sensible to send huge batches of things just to patch over delivery problems relating to latency. So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches, except on a global scale.

bkor 6y ago
> Or worse, sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere in anticipation of them maybe needing it soon You're again making a lot of assumptions here. What do you mean with "sending several containerfulls of stuff somewhere"? Similarly with "This is of course very wasteful". First you assume that companies often send too much stuff, then use that as a basis that there's waste. You haven't substantiated the first assumption! > and the high latency is the source of the waste. Again, this entirely depends on the business (commodity) and circumstances! Further, you take this as a given, while you did _not_ substantiate this at all. For loads of commodities the time spent on the vessel does _not_ matter. For others it might be a mix. Sometimes it's important that things arrive on a regular basis. Sometimes it's not important. > So effectively what has happened in lean manufacturing and product development flow-based approaches Lean manufacturing car companies are happily using container vessel to transport their car parts. I've already mentioned the latency argument is missing the point quite a bit: the scheduling is important. A factory that runs out of parts is way more important than the 2 weeks vs 4-6 weeks. If the 2 weeks cannot be trusted upon it won't work. Further, substantiate your assumptions. I don't see anything referencing a particular business, the costs associated, etc. Just guesswork.
- moftz 6y ago
  Lead time is usually not a huge issue as long as the lead time is consistent. 3 days or 3 months is usually not a problem since you can build you manufacturing process around a given lead time. The cost of transport is going to be much more of a concern. If it takes one month to get a driveshaft in and three months to get windshields, you just order the windshields a couple months earlier than the driveshafts since you won't need the windshields until the last bit of the assembly line. Lead times are an issue for perishable goods though. If your pomegranates are going to be rotten by the time they arrive in port, whats the point.