4 ms·

Fulfillment centers have stand up twice a day where they disclose these numbers to everyone. And it is already well known that people try to turn away tasks tha

Fulfillment centers have stand up twice a day where they disclose these numbers to everyone. And it is already well known that people try to turn away tasks that hurt their rates. Stowing 30 gift cards gives you much higher rates than stowing 30 tea kettles.

Closi 5y ago
The KPIs which are used to track performance at the depot level are different to those used to manage at a colleague level. I work in logistics consulting (including WMS config) and used to work in a company that had very in depth performance management calculations - and it did account for things like the size of items to be stowed. This is standard functionality now in tier-1 warehouse management systems. Basically there are two parts - goal setting where the system works out how long a task should take (based on distance, acceleration for the equipment type being used, product characteristics, level of picker experience, fatigue etc) and then there is a performance calculation based on a re-calculated target time based on what actually happened and how long it actually took (usually a %). You have to recalculate the target to account for the fact that, for instance, the object could have been stowed at a different location than the system estimated if put away is system directed. While an individual worker might get a %, a more typical department kpi will be items stowed per hour for instance. This is because these calculated KPIs are terrible for management of overall site performance because they only measure how ‘hard’ you are working, not how smart you are working (eg you might be generating lots of unnecessary travel but still scoring high in the %).
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  These KPI are a new perversion of our industry and certainly have no benefit to healthy working conditions at all.
  - Closi 5y ago
    Eh, I'm not sure if they are that new, they have been around at least 15 years as far as I know. And some sort of half-version of this has been going for decades. In my first warehouse job we used to have a legacy warehouse system but had worked out performance targets which varied by the make-up of work you got (e.g. a combination of total weight picked, types of order you had picked, orderlines picked and units picked). IMO the only difference is that these new algorithms are generally 'fairer' (the old issue was that rogue department managers could to give preferential treatment to some employees, or put them on the 'best' jobs) but they are also more complex and opaque, which leads to employee mistrust. Where I worked a union actually audited the calculation so it is possible to do this in a somewhat 'open' way, although the problem with opening the algorithm up to everyone is that it is complex and can be easily misunderstood/misinterpreted, particularly if you do not have training in how it all works (which then also requires WMS training!). There were always misconceptions with how the calculation works, because all users saw was a rolled-up number and it's quite a complex thing to understand (even department managers would describe how it works wrongly, and the union would also describe it wrongly, which would confuse people further which obviously isn't a good place to be).
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      We have that too in our production, although it isn't down to the individual. It is pretty extensive monitoring by line mainly for situation where things go wrong. Sure, there could be a case where the chemistry between line worker and manager doesn't work out. I think these cases are rare and people must find alternative arrangements. We must be productive since we produce in a first world nation on an international market and line workers are low wage workers, no illusions about that. We can calculate needed material and expected output. We plan with that. If that is reached, we have succeeded. People help each other when things go wrong. Far better than a mediocre developer fantasizing about KPI and making stop watches for people taking a shit. Obviously creating a condition where workers are competitors might be a hindrance here. No wonder your factory sucks on productivity, everyone is a adversary and if others are slower I will look better on performance sheets. Genius management approach.
      - Closi 5y ago
        Workers aren't competitors in these systems - Workers output is compared to the measured standard, they are not competing against each other. I'm not going to debate if it is / isn't a good thing, because that's individual opinion, but in a distribution setting these systems absolutely help improve performance/output when put into a DC operating at Amazon-scale (at smaller warehouses it's pointless). > We have that too in our production, although it isn't down to the individual Fair, I mean specifically individual user performance tracking has been happening for at least 30 years - because it used to be in a legacy system I used to use. And the time & motion based performance management a-la-Amazon has been around at least 15.
spywaregorilla 5y ago
Sounds like they need a better algorithm then...
_Understated_ 5y ago
When I worked in a fulfillment center (picking and stowing) I never once got told my numbers. Nor was I ever told what my numbers should be, just that "We'll let you know if your numbers drop". And yes, we always tried to take the carts full of SD cards and memory sticks, rather than cauldrons and sinks!
- JohnFen 5y ago
  That's amazing. Enforcing a goal, but refusing to say what that goal actually is? That seems akin to psychological torture right there.
908B64B197 5y ago
Sounds like the metric should account for how hard an item is to handle.

Closi 5y ago

The KPIs which are used to track performance at the depot level are different to those used to manage at a colleague level. I work in logistics consulting (including WMS config) and used to work in a company that had very in depth performance management calculations - and it did account for things like the size of items to be stowed. This is standard functionality now in tier-1 warehouse management systems. Basically there are two parts - goal setting where the system works out how long a task should take (based on distance, acceleration for the equipment type being used, product characteristics, level of picker experience, fatigue etc) and then there is a performance calculation based on a re-calculated target time based on what actually happened and how long it actually took (usually a %). You have to recalculate the target to account for the fact that, for instance, the object could have been stowed at a different location than the system estimated if put away is system directed. While an individual worker might get a %, a more typical department kpi will be items stowed per hour for instance. This is because these calculated KPIs are terrible for management of overall site performance because they only measure how ‘hard’ you are working, not how smart you are working (eg you might be generating lots of unnecessary travel but still scoring high in the %).

raxxorrax 5y ago
These KPI are a new perversion of our industry and certainly have no benefit to healthy working conditions at all.
- Closi 5y ago
  Eh, I'm not sure if they are that new, they have been around at least 15 years as far as I know. And some sort of half-version of this has been going for decades. In my first warehouse job we used to have a legacy warehouse system but had worked out performance targets which varied by the make-up of work you got (e.g. a combination of total weight picked, types of order you had picked, orderlines picked and units picked). IMO the only difference is that these new algorithms are generally 'fairer' (the old issue was that rogue department managers could to give preferential treatment to some employees, or put them on the 'best' jobs) but they are also more complex and opaque, which leads to employee mistrust. Where I worked a union actually audited the calculation so it is possible to do this in a somewhat 'open' way, although the problem with opening the algorithm up to everyone is that it is complex and can be easily misunderstood/misinterpreted, particularly if you do not have training in how it all works (which then also requires WMS training!). There were always misconceptions with how the calculation works, because all users saw was a rolled-up number and it's quite a complex thing to understand (even department managers would describe how it works wrongly, and the union would also describe it wrongly, which would confuse people further which obviously isn't a good place to be).
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    We have that too in our production, although it isn't down to the individual. It is pretty extensive monitoring by line mainly for situation where things go wrong. Sure, there could be a case where the chemistry between line worker and manager doesn't work out. I think these cases are rare and people must find alternative arrangements. We must be productive since we produce in a first world nation on an international market and line workers are low wage workers, no illusions about that. We can calculate needed material and expected output. We plan with that. If that is reached, we have succeeded. People help each other when things go wrong. Far better than a mediocre developer fantasizing about KPI and making stop watches for people taking a shit. Obviously creating a condition where workers are competitors might be a hindrance here. No wonder your factory sucks on productivity, everyone is a adversary and if others are slower I will look better on performance sheets. Genius management approach.
    - Closi 5y ago
      Workers aren't competitors in these systems - Workers output is compared to the measured standard, they are not competing against each other. I'm not going to debate if it is / isn't a good thing, because that's individual opinion, but in a distribution setting these systems absolutely help improve performance/output when put into a DC operating at Amazon-scale (at smaller warehouses it's pointless). > We have that too in our production, although it isn't down to the individual Fair, I mean specifically individual user performance tracking has been happening for at least 30 years - because it used to be in a legacy system I used to use. And the time & motion based performance management a-la-Amazon has been around at least 15.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

Sounds like they need a better algorithm then...

_Understated_ 5y ago

When I worked in a fulfillment center (picking and stowing) I never once got told my numbers. Nor was I ever told what my numbers should be, just that "We'll let you know if your numbers drop". And yes, we always tried to take the carts full of SD cards and memory sticks, rather than cauldrons and sinks!

JohnFen 5y ago
That's amazing. Enforcing a goal, but refusing to say what that goal actually is? That seems akin to psychological torture right there.

908B64B197 5y ago

Sounds like the metric should account for how hard an item is to handle.