2 ms·

It sounds like the idea is to only have to spend time manually cleaning it every fortnight instead of daily, and perhaps to limit waste of the product? But perh

It sounds like the idea is to only have to spend time manually cleaning it every fortnight instead of daily, and perhaps to limit waste of the product? But perhaps that gets offset by the fact that the increased complexity seems to make it so difficult to operate that it leads to constant interruptions and expensive service calls.

ogurechny 5y ago
Most likely, the real answer was given straight away: a worker from other company says they clean their machines daily. I'd expect that in common language that means they disassemble and wash them the old way without using any automatic maintenance programs. But then you wouldn't have a vaguely sensational video on a pop cultural topic with a million of views. I guess it's a typical big company nonsense. Someone probably had an idea that daily cleaning is too time-consuming and expensive, and the task to solve that problem was introduced. Some lab made tests, and defined The Only True Way of keeping the product edible. (Side note: re-boiling a mix of fats and sugars each day for two weeks? Who would eat the result of that? Who thought it was a reliable idea?) The cleaning period could only be stretched to the maximum, for obvious business reasons. That resulted in tiny error margins (which maker can't voluntary change without spending money on new research). So presentations on clear financial gains were made, and the new option was proudly implemented. Some employee has probably been keeping eye on changes in cream composition, regulations, and related research, and issuing new checks for the machines. However, in reality this doesn't work that well (even indifferent part-time workers who don't give a damn after a shift are part of reality you can't simply rule out). But the goal of reverting or altering the process is not really important to McDonalds, as making it work is now pain in the store owner's ass. You have probably noticed similar cases in computing, when some high-tech solution are introduced, and their gains are shared with lots of pathos, but the resulting system looks way too complex and unstable even from a distance.
asdff 5y ago
It just seems like some vendor got the contract before a cost benefit analysis could be done. I mean 15 minutes out of a shift worker's time costs mcDonalds maybe $5. $5 for a day of ice cream sales seems like a cheap service contract to me.

ogurechny 5y ago

Most likely, the real answer was given straight away: a worker from other company says they clean their machines daily. I'd expect that in common language that means they disassemble and wash them the old way without using any automatic maintenance programs. But then you wouldn't have a vaguely sensational video on a pop cultural topic with a million of views. I guess it's a typical big company nonsense. Someone probably had an idea that daily cleaning is too time-consuming and expensive, and the task to solve that problem was introduced. Some lab made tests, and defined The Only True Way of keeping the product edible. (Side note: re-boiling a mix of fats and sugars each day for two weeks? Who would eat the result of that? Who thought it was a reliable idea?) The cleaning period could only be stretched to the maximum, for obvious business reasons. That resulted in tiny error margins (which maker can't voluntary change without spending money on new research). So presentations on clear financial gains were made, and the new option was proudly implemented. Some employee has probably been keeping eye on changes in cream composition, regulations, and related research, and issuing new checks for the machines. However, in reality this doesn't work that well (even indifferent part-time workers who don't give a damn after a shift are part of reality you can't simply rule out). But the goal of reverting or altering the process is not really important to McDonalds, as making it work is now pain in the store owner's ass. You have probably noticed similar cases in computing, when some high-tech solution are introduced, and their gains are shared with lots of pathos, but the resulting system looks way too complex and unstable even from a distance.

asdff 5y ago

It just seems like some vendor got the contract before a cost benefit analysis could be done. I mean 15 minutes out of a shift worker's time costs mcDonalds maybe $5. $5 for a day of ice cream sales seems like a cheap service contract to me.