4 ms·
While some of that might be true, explain to me why an organisation like macdonalds would allow up to 30% of such machinery to be out of working order for years
by wokwokwok 2y ago
While some of that might be true, explain to me why an organisation like macdonalds would allow up to 30% of such machinery to be out of working order for years and years in high value areas.
Your analysis posits what, that they’re just blatantly incompetent?
I don’t believe that.
If the economics of a working ice cream machine were that good, it would be a solved problem.
You don’t run an organisation like MacDonalds with a basic inability to maintain infrastructure. Imagine if that was true of fryers? Or microwaves? That almost never happens. It’s clearly not a technical problem.
The only way that you could justify the continued maintenance failure you see is if the benefits of a working machine were negligible at best.
Perhaps what you say might be true in general but in this specific circumstance I think you’re applying an “in general…” kind of logic (like “in general more unit tests are better…”) which doesn’t ring true here, to me.
- dangus 2y agoI think it's actually telling that so many of them are broken but the product hasn't been discontinued. It tells you that it's not really a burdensome product to have on the menu. Dump the liquid in the machine, turn it on, empty and clean the machine at close. There's almost nothing else in the store that is so low-effort. I'm not saying that the high rate of failure isn't a problem or lost revenue. I also have a hunch that the problem disproportionately affects specific franchise owners who benefit from the product less than others.