3 ms·

> In the case for instance that there is an out of stock, or you need to go to another picking location, the system re-calculates the required distance. There

> In the case for instance that there is an out of stock, or you need to go to another picking location, the system re-calculates the required distance. There have been reports from workers to the contrary. I don't mean to refute your arguments. I'm just suggesting workers don't (or haven't) believe this to be the case.

Closi 5y ago
I believe this is a misconception, just because we used to have the same mis-understanding with staff where I worked. The misconception comes from being given a target-time which is based on a calculation assuming the task can be completed successfully with no delays, however afterwards the target-times are recalculated to account for the additional movement. A common assumption is that performance is (Time it took / Initial target time) - especially because the users see the target time - however it is really (Time it took / Recalculated target time accounting for additional movements). I'm not aware of Amazon's exact implementation - but all performance management suites I'm aware of will re-calculate afterwards based on 'actual' task rather than 'forecast' task.
lozenge 5y ago
Maybe the system just accepts you'll miss the target 2% of the time for reasons like that. However, the workers don't see that and get stressed (by design). Also, if the actual frequency of these issues is 1.9%, some workers will have bad luck and get penalised (also accepted as part of the design).
PoignardAzur 5y ago
I have no experience whatsoever with warehouses, so this is just speculation, but I suspect a big problem of these systems is they don't degrade gracefully in new situations. So maybe the system has gives you "bonus time" if an item is out of stock so you can fetch it at a different shelf... except for a special item that needs to be stored in special conditions. So if you need to fetch the item and it's out of stock, you need to wait five minutes for a colleague to fetch more, and the system classifies it as wasted time. From what I've gleaned in articles and the like, it's the main problem with these systems: if they encounter a problem that was accounted for, things go smoothly. If they encounter a new problem, they default to assuming the employee / contractor is at fault.
- Closi 5y ago
  Eh, in my experience all situations are pretty much accounted for to be honest. The exceptions are pretty much all known, except for extreme circumstances like fires or injuries (but the system accounts for these too, as new indirect time). For instance to take your example at this scale the system will always tell you to go do something rather than wait at the pickface for a replenishment (there are lots of options for how this situation can be handled, but the job of the WMS is to capture and handle these exceptions). Less refined warehouse processes might wait, but at the level of system sophistication that these tracking systems need this is likely already engineered out. IMO in terms of being a fair measure of individual effort/performance - these systems are about as good as you can get in a warehouse and are pretty sophisticated and good at calculating the exceptions. If people disagree with using them as a management tool that’s fair enough, but IMO the calculation is much more thorough and fair than in other places where people get performance managed.
  - PoignardAzur 5y ago
    I was thinking about a recent article about drivers who said they had to cross highways on foot because the app thought it was a road and would penalize them if they drove the long way around. I dunno. Maybe the Amazon's warehouse system is more polished, or maybe the complaints from the drivers were anecdotes not representative of the industry. I haven't really seen recent articles/studies about the working conditions in Amazon facilities, so I don't know how up to date the old complaints are.
    - Closi 5y ago
      The only thing I would say is that the accuracy of the performance management solution isn’t necessarily indicative of the working conditions You can have a really poor performance management calculation and great working conditions and visa-versa.

Closi 5y ago

I believe this is a misconception, just because we used to have the same mis-understanding with staff where I worked. The misconception comes from being given a target-time which is based on a calculation assuming the task can be completed successfully with no delays, however afterwards the target-times are recalculated to account for the additional movement. A common assumption is that performance is (Time it took / Initial target time) - especially because the users see the target time - however it is really (Time it took / Recalculated target time accounting for additional movements). I'm not aware of Amazon's exact implementation - but all performance management suites I'm aware of will re-calculate afterwards based on 'actual' task rather than 'forecast' task.

lozenge 5y ago

Maybe the system just accepts you'll miss the target 2% of the time for reasons like that. However, the workers don't see that and get stressed (by design). Also, if the actual frequency of these issues is 1.9%, some workers will have bad luck and get penalised (also accepted as part of the design).

PoignardAzur 5y ago

I have no experience whatsoever with warehouses, so this is just speculation, but I suspect a big problem of these systems is they don't degrade gracefully in new situations. So maybe the system has gives you "bonus time" if an item is out of stock so you can fetch it at a different shelf... except for a special item that needs to be stored in special conditions. So if you need to fetch the item and it's out of stock, you need to wait five minutes for a colleague to fetch more, and the system classifies it as wasted time. From what I've gleaned in articles and the like, it's the main problem with these systems: if they encounter a problem that was accounted for, things go smoothly. If they encounter a new problem, they default to assuming the employee / contractor is at fault.

Closi 5y ago
Eh, in my experience all situations are pretty much accounted for to be honest. The exceptions are pretty much all known, except for extreme circumstances like fires or injuries (but the system accounts for these too, as new indirect time). For instance to take your example at this scale the system will always tell you to go do something rather than wait at the pickface for a replenishment (there are lots of options for how this situation can be handled, but the job of the WMS is to capture and handle these exceptions). Less refined warehouse processes might wait, but at the level of system sophistication that these tracking systems need this is likely already engineered out. IMO in terms of being a fair measure of individual effort/performance - these systems are about as good as you can get in a warehouse and are pretty sophisticated and good at calculating the exceptions. If people disagree with using them as a management tool that’s fair enough, but IMO the calculation is much more thorough and fair than in other places where people get performance managed.
- PoignardAzur 5y ago
  I was thinking about a recent article about drivers who said they had to cross highways on foot because the app thought it was a road and would penalize them if they drove the long way around. I dunno. Maybe the Amazon's warehouse system is more polished, or maybe the complaints from the drivers were anecdotes not representative of the industry. I haven't really seen recent articles/studies about the working conditions in Amazon facilities, so I don't know how up to date the old complaints are.
  - Closi 5y ago
    The only thing I would say is that the accuracy of the performance management solution isn’t necessarily indicative of the working conditions You can have a really poor performance management calculation and great working conditions and visa-versa.