3 ms·

The availability of centralized API was not the issue. The issue was that the operators were significantly more efficient when performing the process “by eye” t

by dfox 2y ago

The availability of centralized API was not the issue. The issue was that the operators were significantly more efficient when performing the process “by eye” than when supported by some kind of computerized system. For example the on-depot sorting process that we settled on was two-phase: first you sort the parcels either manually by routing codes on the labels or through automated sorting line with the current data and then in second phase the operator scans everything that is supposed to go out of the depot and in that process moves around the ~5% of parcels that got sorted incorrectly, which is incredibly more effective than doing that correctly in one pass.

inopinatus 2y ago
> The availability of centralized API was not the issue. The issue was that the operators were significantly more efficient when performing the process “by eye” than when supported by some kind of computerized system. If you think these are different considerations, then you are splitting the wrong hairs. The processes landed on to resolve the conflict are not surprising, but also doesn’t sound like they addressed the underlying architectural conceit.
- dfox 2y ago
  At a large enough scale you can do most of these processes by automation, except the actual courier delivery. And well, at least UPS has actual identified locations in their vans, so just going by location+barcode might be somewhat practical for them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - inopinatus 2y ago
    Beware of the line of operations research thinking that has latterly tanked Boeing’s engineering reputation, something the rest of us designing layered business processes can all learn from. Complexity is always best handled pushed down to the leaves of the tree. The ideal central body performs reporting and audit, not command and control. Although for some, I suppose the Boeing takeaway might be that the bottom line improved and no-one went to prison.

by dfox 2y ago

inopinatus 2y ago

> The availability of centralized API was not the issue. The issue was that the operators were significantly more efficient when performing the process “by eye” than when supported by some kind of computerized system. If you think these are different considerations, then you are splitting the wrong hairs. The processes landed on to resolve the conflict are not surprising, but also doesn’t sound like they addressed the underlying architectural conceit.

dfox 2y ago
At a large enough scale you can do most of these processes by automation, except the actual courier delivery. And well, at least UPS has actual identified locations in their vans, so just going by location+barcode might be somewhat practical for them.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- inopinatus 2y ago
  Beware of the line of operations research thinking that has latterly tanked Boeing’s engineering reputation, something the rest of us designing layered business processes can all learn from. Complexity is always best handled pushed down to the leaves of the tree. The ideal central body performs reporting and audit, not command and control. Although for some, I suppose the Boeing takeaway might be that the bottom line improved and no-one went to prison.