5 ms·

Your argument seems to lean a bit too strongly on unsupported accusations of fraud: Did it take less than 2 hours to create the booth, the signs, and perform t

Your argument seems to lean a bit too strongly on unsupported accusations of fraud: Did it take less than 2 hours to create the booth, the signs, and perform the services? Unlikely. What, you're saying that a team of college students, on a college campus, which presumably has a fully stocked stationery store within five minutes' walk, can't throw up some hand-scrawled signs in less than (say) 15 minutes for under five bucks? Yeah, they probably had to already have the tire pump and gauge. I presume that "what do we have in our closets" was an important part of the process of choosing this business plan. ;) And I don't seem to recall anything in the "constraints" about not being allowed to beg or borrow anything, nor any rules about not being allowed to use stuff you already own. This isn't accounting class. did they make the reservations at 6pm and then sell them before 8pm? Why not? Remember: They're doing this in parallel, using multiple team members and multiple restaurants. And, given the anecdote ("this works better for restaurants that hand out little buzzers") we're not talking about the sort of reservation that needs to be obtained hours in advance. We're talking about people paying for the privilege of jumping the line and turning a 40-minute wait into a 4-minute wait. You can get through quite a few cycles of that in two hours.

seldo 17y ago
You make valid points. My problem is less the specifics of the individual teams' solutions -- I don't dispute they were very clever and creative solutions -- but rather the impression that the greatest reward went to those who went furthest outside of the rules. Team 1 were arguably entirely within the rules and made $200, Team 2 went a little outside (unless they were handed the envelope at 6pm) and made a little more, Team 3 ignored the 2-hour stipulation entirely and made $650. Fundamentally, you're not rewarding creativity at money-making, you're rewarding creativity at rule-breaking.
- varikin 17y ago
  If you watch the video, all teams were handed the envelop at the start of the week in class. They were allowed to think an form a business plan as long as they liked. They didn't know how much was in the envelop. Once they opened the envelop, they had 2 hours to make money.
  - dkokelley 17y ago
    Exactly. They weren't told they must open the envelope. The last team figured this out and (presumably) timed it so that their 2 hours coincided with the 3 minute presentation time.
- raganwald 17y ago
  Fundamentally, you're not rewarding creativity at money-making, you're rewarding creativity at rule-breaking. And there's your insight. If what you want is money, and lots of it, finding creative ways to game the system is how it's done. I am not lauding that, just pointing it out.
  - protomyth 17y ago
    Maybe on Wall Street, but elsewhere you make a lot of money by creating something people really want, but not generally what they wanted.
    - herval 17y ago
      elsewhere you make money by making people want things, not trying to predict what they want. People usually don't know what they want anyway...
  - gnaritas 17y ago
    > finding creative ways to game the system is how it's done. And a good way to end a up crook or in jail. Business should be about creating value for both parties involved.
  - Goladus 17y ago
    Actually the lesson was about managing valuable resources, not gaming the system. It was a warning that the system can be distracting and can easily confine your thinking.
- Goladus 17y ago
  The lesson was: don't let funding distract you from identifying the most valuable resources available to you. At worst, the cases you mention break the rules in rather insignificant ways. All three scenarios can quite plausibly be done entirely within the rules as defined, even if they didn't quite make it in reality. Presumably, there were much less creative solutions that also failed to entirely obey all stipulations. It was an exercise, not a contest.
Tichy 17y ago
"And I don't seem to recall anything in the "constraints" about not being allowed to beg or borrow anything, nor any rules about not being allowed to use stuff you already own." What if "stuff you already own" includes a bank account with 2 million bucks in it? I also thought the solution was a bit dishonest, but then the whole thing should not be taken that serious from the start. The reservations solution seems even worse, though I am not sure how exactly it works (would it piss off restaurants in the long run, or is it really a valuable service?). Selling the presentation time seems to be the only valid solution.
- Kadin 17y ago
  In what way is offering to check someone's tire pressure and then inflate it for a nominal fee, or a donation, "dishonest"? The first scenario is one a lot of Jiffy Lube-type garages and auto parts stores like Pep Boys do all the time (although typically with more than just tire pressure, e.g. transmission fluid). The latter -- asking for donations and letting people pay what they want -- is something the Boy Scouts in my hometown used to do all the time. Free air for your tires, free coffee by the side of the Interstate ... I saw them doing free brake light replacement once. In theory they'd do it for free if someone really couldn't afford it, but in practice people pay what they think the service is worth (or whatever of that they happen to have on hand), so it's a sort of self-defined "sliding scale." I don't see any misrepresentation there so I don't see how it's inherently dishonest.
  - Tichy 17y ago
    Because the equipment presumably cost more than 5$.
    - tjr 17y ago
      And so would the clothes they are ostensibly wearing.
      - Tichy 17y ago
        Hm, to set up the experiment properly could become an entertaining experience :-) Edit: really, though, what is the actual experiment here? If all external aids are allowed, the only lesson left seems to be to think outside of the box.

seldo 17y ago

You make valid points. My problem is less the specifics of the individual teams' solutions -- I don't dispute they were very clever and creative solutions -- but rather the impression that the greatest reward went to those who went furthest outside of the rules. Team 1 were arguably entirely within the rules and made $200, Team 2 went a little outside (unless they were handed the envelope at 6pm) and made a little more, Team 3 ignored the 2-hour stipulation entirely and made $650. Fundamentally, you're not rewarding creativity at money-making, you're rewarding creativity at rule-breaking.

varikin 17y ago
If you watch the video, all teams were handed the envelop at the start of the week in class. They were allowed to think an form a business plan as long as they liked. They didn't know how much was in the envelop. Once they opened the envelop, they had 2 hours to make money.
- dkokelley 17y ago
  Exactly. They weren't told they must open the envelope. The last team figured this out and (presumably) timed it so that their 2 hours coincided with the 3 minute presentation time.
raganwald 17y ago
Fundamentally, you're not rewarding creativity at money-making, you're rewarding creativity at rule-breaking. And there's your insight. If what you want is money, and lots of it, finding creative ways to game the system is how it's done. I am not lauding that, just pointing it out.
- protomyth 17y ago
  Maybe on Wall Street, but elsewhere you make a lot of money by creating something people really want, but not generally what they wanted.
  - herval 17y ago
    elsewhere you make money by making people want things, not trying to predict what they want. People usually don't know what they want anyway...
- gnaritas 17y ago
  > finding creative ways to game the system is how it's done. And a good way to end a up crook or in jail. Business should be about creating value for both parties involved.
- Goladus 17y ago
  Actually the lesson was about managing valuable resources, not gaming the system. It was a warning that the system can be distracting and can easily confine your thinking.
Goladus 17y ago
The lesson was: don't let funding distract you from identifying the most valuable resources available to you. At worst, the cases you mention break the rules in rather insignificant ways. All three scenarios can quite plausibly be done entirely within the rules as defined, even if they didn't quite make it in reality. Presumably, there were much less creative solutions that also failed to entirely obey all stipulations. It was an exercise, not a contest.

Tichy 17y ago

"And I don't seem to recall anything in the "constraints" about not being allowed to beg or borrow anything, nor any rules about not being allowed to use stuff you already own." What if "stuff you already own" includes a bank account with 2 million bucks in it? I also thought the solution was a bit dishonest, but then the whole thing should not be taken that serious from the start. The reservations solution seems even worse, though I am not sure how exactly it works (would it piss off restaurants in the long run, or is it really a valuable service?). Selling the presentation time seems to be the only valid solution.

Kadin 17y ago
In what way is offering to check someone's tire pressure and then inflate it for a nominal fee, or a donation, "dishonest"? The first scenario is one a lot of Jiffy Lube-type garages and auto parts stores like Pep Boys do all the time (although typically with more than just tire pressure, e.g. transmission fluid). The latter -- asking for donations and letting people pay what they want -- is something the Boy Scouts in my hometown used to do all the time. Free air for your tires, free coffee by the side of the Interstate ... I saw them doing free brake light replacement once. In theory they'd do it for free if someone really couldn't afford it, but in practice people pay what they think the service is worth (or whatever of that they happen to have on hand), so it's a sort of self-defined "sliding scale." I don't see any misrepresentation there so I don't see how it's inherently dishonest.
- Tichy 17y ago
  Because the equipment presumably cost more than 5$.
  - tjr 17y ago
    And so would the clothes they are ostensibly wearing.
    - Tichy 17y ago
      Hm, to set up the experiment properly could become an entertaining experience :-) Edit: really, though, what is the actual experiment here? If all external aids are allowed, the only lesson left seems to be to think outside of the box.