Freight Is The Tail, Not the Dog

Tuesday, June 8th, 2010

Economy of scale is great when you’ve got it, Bill Waddell says. The problem comes when you try to create it out of thin air. Freight is the tail, not the dog:

Peter Drucker, in an amazingly forward looking article he wrote way back in 1990 called “The Emerging Theory of Manufacturing,” wrote “the new system sees the plant as little more than a wide place in the manufacturing stream.” Just how “wide” the plant is depends largely on just how hung up the freight people are on gaining economies of scale from truckload and container load shipments to save a few percent on the material cost. In way too many manufacturers the drive to save pennies from truckload scale sabotages the entire lean effort.

Buy stuff from China — or from two states away for that matter — when you only need a pallet a day of whatever you are buying to meet customer demand. The freight guy, aided and abetted by cost accounting, and measured and given raises and bonuses based on freight cost as a percentage of material cost, raises a ruckus and makes an eloquent case for buying truckloads of the material — a month’s worth at a time. So instead of paying 6% for a bunch of LTL or LCL shipments, he pays 3% for truckloads and container loads.

Instead of Drucker’s stream, you end up with a dry creek bed for 3.8 weeks, then a dam burst akin to the Johnstown flood. Floor space is consumed, racks and forklifts are wearing out, material handlers are working overtime, transactions to keep track of it all, cycle counting programs flourish, and each item is handled multiple times — but the freight guy saved his 3%. All that other stuff is just overhead which can’t be directly tied to the individual material items —  so it isn’t entered into the equation. And, of course, not factored into the metric used to measure the freight person’s performance.

A 13th-Century Castle Rises in Arkansas

Saturday, June 5th, 2010

An eccentric Frenchman, Michel Guyot, has decided to build a 13th-century castle in Arkansas:

For years, he renovated medieval ruins. In 1997, he set a grander course: He would build his own crenellated château in the Guédelon forest in Burgundy. To finance the project, he opened the site to tourists. It has been self-sustaining ever since.

The Guédelon castle, which is about halfway built, has drawn visitors from around the world, including Jean-Marc Miret, a French expatriate living in the Ozarks. He was so taken with the concept, he urged Mr. Guyot to build an American version on his estate in Boone County, Ark.

“We went on the Internet to check, where was this Arkansas?” says Noémi Brunet, Mr. Guyot’s wife and business partner. Her conclusion? “It was the middle of nowhere.”

It was also irresistible. Mr. Guyot and Ms. Brunet visited and fell in love with the remote county, best known for its annual crawdad festival. “It’s green and lovely, very authentic, very pure,” Ms. Brunet says.

Returning to France, Mr. Guyot raised $1.5 million from 14 investors—all friends of his—to buy a 50-acre parcel and begin construction.

He cheated at first, just a bit: Mechanized equipment was brought in to build a visitors’ center and a wheelchair-accessible walkway.

But when it comes to the castle itself, Mr. Guyot makes no concessions to modernity–except for those mandated by federal workplace requirements. Workers, though dressed in medieval garb, must wear steel-toed boots and safety goggles.

The stones are quarried at the site; the timber is cut from local trees; every nail and tile is made on premises. Knotted ropes are manipulated to measure angles. Two-ton boulders are hoisted by a foot-cranked crane that resembles a giant wooden hamster wheel.

The site manager has had trouble hiring a basket weaver, but there’s a blacksmith on site, a rope maker, a potter, even a flock of sheep to provide wool for castle tapestries.

Muscles straining as he hoists and splits 50-pound stones to set into the castle’s outer wall, mason Brad Fire Cloud says he dreams of power tools with shock-absorbent grips. “That crosses my mind all day long,” he says.

Six men quit during their first week on the job, including one before noon the first day. There’s no music on site. No cellphones allowed. No McDonald’s runs for lunch breaks. The floppy medieval hats look so goofy that mason Anthony McCutcheon says his wife “just about runs me off when I come home wearing it.”

Still, the two dozen laborers who stuck it out, for wages ranging from about $12 to $20 an hour, have discovered unexpected joys. The work is peaceful and challenging and, best of all, steady.

“Most jobs in masonry last three or four months. Out here, we got 20 years,” says Mr. Fire Cloud, who hides his Dr Pepper in a burlap bag to keep the ambience authentic. “That’s job security.”

To cover construction costs of about $1 million a year, the Ozark Medieval Fortress must draw 150,000 visitors annually — but so far tourism has been just over 1,000 visitors in a month:

But the tourist season doesn’t start in earnest until this weekend, and officials expect it will pick up. They’re marketing heavily in Branson, Mo., a country-music mecca less than an hour’s drive from the castle that attracts 7.5 million tourists a year.

I don’t see the obvious cross-over appeal between Branson and an authentic castle.

Tesla’s Elon Musk is Out of Cash

Thursday, June 3rd, 2010

Tesla’s CEO Elon Musk says he has run out of cash. By coincidence, he’s going through a divorce:

“About four months ago, I ran out of cash,” he wrote in a court filing dated Feb. 23, reviewed by VentureBeat. That’s a problem not just for him but for Tesla, where he is the lead investor and chief product architect, as well as CEO. Musk’s willingness to funnel his own cash into Tesla has for years sustained the faith of fellow investors and reassured would-be car buyers in 2008 when the company’s finances were in perilous shape.

According to the filing — part of his pending divorce case from sci-fi novelist Justine Musk — Elon Musk has been living off personal loans from friends since October 2009 and spending $200,000 a month while making far less. Musk confirmed this in an interview with VentureBeat.

Tesla, likewise, is dealing with its cash flow problems by borrowing money from a friendly source — the United States government, which has eagerly backed cleantech startups through a Department of Energy loan program. Tesla burned through $37 million in cash in the last three months of 2009, according to amended S-1 documents, filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission in preparation for its IPO. Tesla slowed this burn rate in the first quarter of 2010 to $8.4 million, but only by drawing down part of a $465 million loan from the DOE, while reporting a net loss of $29.5 million. Tesla’s sales were flat year-over-year in the first quarter, but declined precipitously in the U.S., according to a former Tesla executive.

Now, Toyota has agreed to buy $50 million in shares at the time of Tesla’s initial public offering — if it manages to go public before Dec. 31. But for now, the company doesn’t have access to that promised cash, and must pay $42 million to buy the NUMMI plant in Fremont, Calif., from a Toyota-General Motors joint venture.

Musk had a lot of money not too long ago:

And throughout Tesla’s history, Musk has used his entrepreneurial legend — Zip2, sold for $305 million to Compaq; PayPal, sold to eBay for $1.5 billion — to bolster his credibility as a technology executive. Musk’s personal take from Zip2 was a reported $22 million, much of which he invested in his next startup, PayPal, netting $160 million when eBay bought the online-payments startup. According to filings in his divorce trial, he had roughly $48 million in income from his investments between 2005 and 2008. But he sunk much of that money back into Tesla, as well as his other enterprises, the space-exploration concern SpaceX and solar panel finance startup SolarCity.

His finances were not always so strained. In other documents filed in the divorce case, Musk reportedly made $9,551,753 in 2008 and an average of $17.2 million a year from 2005 to 2008. As of Dec. 31, 2008, he also had extensive holdings in venture capital and private equity partnerships, ranging from Softbank Technology Ventures to Charles River Ventures to Clarium Capital. These partnerships, however, tend to be highly illiquid investments: It can take months to get out of them because you have to find a sophisticated buyer willing to bear the risks of a private sale.

As he ran low on cash, a contentious divorce — in which his ex-wife, Justine Musk, is seeking a sizable chunk of Musk’s holdings — caused him more financial problems. Justine Musk is asking a court to rip up a post-nuptial agreement she and Elon Musk signed in March 2000, which could in theory lead to much of his holdings being deemed community property. While there’s no telling how the case will turn out — it has already gone to appeal — more important is the protective order the court has slapped on Musk’s holdings in Tesla and his other illiquid assets. These include his stakes in private equity funds. He won’t be able to sell significant holdings without first getting permission from his ex-wife. And he has also been ordered by a court to continue paying her legal fees for the duration of the lengthy appeal process.

If Capitalists Ran the Schools

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Robin Hanson believes that our school system functions in part to help folks accept workplace domination — a point made in Schooling in Capitalist America decades ago — but Bryan Caplan finds this wildly implausible. If capitalists ran the schools, he says, they’d impose much stricter discipline:

The system we have looks more like it was designed by egalitarian bureaucrats trying to minimize the number of phone calls and visits they get from angry parents of kids with bad behavior.

Furthermore, if capitalists ran the school system, they wouldn’t teach poetry, art, history, music, etc. Performance in these subjects does signal desirable traits, but if the capitalists were in charge, they might as well impose a curriculum that lets students signal and build job skills at the same time.

So, what kind of school system would our corporate overlords design? I don’t think it would be particularly terrifying:

Corporations hiring young workers just out of school complain that “kids these days” can’t communicate professionally and have little sense of responsibility, so a school run for the benefit of corporate employers would probably emphasize straightforward business writing and meeting deadlines.

Instead of poetry, art, history, music, etc., I would expect them to emphasize general business skills — accounting, project management, marketing math — and engineering, along with trade-school skills — metal shop, graphic arts, etc.

Big Blue Monster

Tuesday, June 1st, 2010

Before Sesame Street and The Muppet Show, Jim Henson made short corporate films for IBM. Here, Rowlf the Dog — famous for his appearances on the Jimmy Dean Show — joins the IBM sales team and aspires to join the 100-percenters club:

If you’re not up on early TV ads, he’s spoofing Avon, Timex, and Wrigley’s Doublemint gum. And Sperry-Rand was a competing brand.

Before Cookie Monster appeared on Sesame Street, this toothy version of the voracious big blue monster introduced a coffee break:

Kermit the Frog does the same:

These two no-name muppets perform what would become a go-to gag on The Muppet Show:

How Cheap Beat Cool in the Chevy Volt

Friday, May 28th, 2010

John Petersen explains how cheap beat cool in the Chevy Volt:

Battery Cost The Chevy Volt will use Li-polymer batteries manufactured by Korea’s LG Chem. While Li-polymer batteries have had a spotty safety record in cell phones and laptops and do not begin to approach the extreme cycle-life of Li-phosphate and Li-titanate chemistries, they are far and away the cheapest variety of Li-ion batteries with prices in the $600 to $700 per kWh range as opposed to the $1,300 to $2,000 per kWh range.

Passenger Safety To resolve the basic safety issues associated with Li-ion batteries, GM has designed a T-shaped battery pack that sits in front of the rear axle and runs forward through the space that used to be taken up by the driveshaft. At first glance, the battery pack looks like it comes out of a battle tank instead of a passenger car.

The topside of the battery pack looks far stronger than the bottom side of the battery pack and it’s clear that the basic geometry has been designed to deflect the potentially explosive force of a battery failure down and away from the passenger compartment. The absence of any visible deformation in the 35 mph crash test photos of the battery pack confirm that GM thinks armor plate is more cost-effective than exotic chemistry. Overall, GM’s battery pack design is a cheap but effective way to avoid potential personal injury risks.

Cycle Life Performance Li-polymer batteries are not renowned for the extreme cycle-life of their more glamorous and expensive cousins like Li-phosphate and Li-titanate. To optimize the cycle life of the batteries in the Volt, GM has chosen to install a 16 kWh battery pack in the Volt but only use 55% of the theoretical capacity to power the car. By limiting the maximum state of charge to 85% and switching to internal combustion when the state of charge falls to 30%, GM believes it can get a 10-year life out of batteries that would die much more quickly with a wider cycling range. Once again, GM has chosen a cheap but cost-effective way to balance battery capacity and cycle life.

Weight and Energy Density The final weight of the Volt battery pack is about 175 Kg. This works out to an energy density of roughly 50 Wh/Kg for useful battery capacity, about the same value as a high quality lead-acid battery.

Recycling While the Chevy Volt battery pack will be built to European recycling standards, those standards only relate to safe disposal of potentially toxic materials and do not get into issues like recovering materials of sufficient purity that they can be used to make new batteries. This is good from a pure disposal perspective, but suboptimal if one’s environmental sensitivities extend beyond landfills to include the environmental damage caused by mining and other resource extraction activities.

In the Chevy Volt, cheap has already beaten cool like I predicted it would. Since GM has established battery cost reduction as a primary goal for future generations of PHEVs, I would not be at all surprised to see GM and other auto makers paying particular attention to advanced lead-acid and lead-carbon chemistries over the next few years because the widely heralded energy density and size advantages of Li-ion chemistry evaporate when the technology is reduced to safe commercial practice.

A Ridiculous Device

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

In 1995, Oracle’s megalomaniacal CEO, Larry Ellison, decided to announce a product that would wipe Microsoft — and Bill Gates — off the map, but he did not time his attack well:

“A PC is a ridiculous device,” he said, launching an attack on Microsoft’s core business. He ran down a list of the desktop’s deficiencies: It was hard to learn to operate, expensive, overpowered, and — thanks to the arrival of the World Wide Web — increasingly irrelevant. That’s why he was ushering in the post-PC era with the network computer, or NC, which Oracle would help build within a year. The simple $500 box would be a stripped-down unit that served one purpose: to connect to the Internet. For the NC, the Web wouldn’t be a mere feature but a utility, as fundamental as water and electricity. “What the world really wants,” Ellison told the crowd, “is to plug into a wall to get electronic power, and plug in to get data.”
[...]
Obsessive competitiveness may have inspired Ellison’s idea, but it also contributed to its downfall. His turf battle with Redmond ended up kneecapping his product. Looking to stem the momentum of Windows, Ellison promised to release low-cost machines within a year. That meant rushing out computers before they were fully developed. When it hit stores in the fall of 1996, the Acorn NC — commissioned by Oracle to be the model around which the new market would coalesce — had an underpowered ARM processor that produced blocky graphics and strained to render a Web page in less than four seconds. IBM’s Network Station computers — the flagship corporate version of the NC — didn’t fare much better. They were too slow, too limited, and too complicated to coordinate with company servers. Irving Wladawsky-Berger, who ran the Internet division at IBM and ultimately oversaw its NC project, was embarrassed. “We thought we had a full product,” he says. “But when we took it to market, we realized it was an alpha.”

Oracle’s rush to market also meant that the NC hit shelves before the infrastructure existed to support it. The machine was supposed to run lightweight Web applications instead of installed software — and everyone believed Java would be up to the task. But it was never able to support powerful-enough applications. And with wide-scale broadband penetration still many years away, Internet apps didn’t stand a chance against local software.
[...]
In 1999, after spending four years and losing nearly $175 million, Oracle pulled the plug, changing the name of its network computer spinoff to Liberate Technologies and focusing its business on set-top box software for interactive television.

The NC is dead. Long live the NC:

Now that the Web-software environment has been established, NC-like hardware has begun to proliferate. The first example, of course, is netbooks. Debuting just two years ago, they currently account for more than 20 percent of PC sales. In the 12 months ending in September 2009, sales jumped 77 percent. Yet while the netbook may be the direct descendent of the NC, its cousin, the smartphone, is seen by most alumni of the NC movement as the more powerful force. Every day, iPhone and iPod users download 4.5 million applications — grown-up versions of the widgets that Ellison predicted would run on the NC. “Ellison is often time-dyslexic — right about the fundamental trend but wrong on timing, ” says David Roux, a partner at private equity firm Silver Lake and a former Oracle executive vice president. “It’s hard to look at a $299 netbook and not see the NC vision come to life.”

Once, We Were Makers

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

The Lost Tribes of RadioShack must search for a new spiritual home, as their Mecca has transformed itself from a storehouse of transistors and capacitors for DIY hobbyists to a slick store that sells mobility — cell phones:

The problem, in short, was that Americans didn’t think RadioShack was cool. To the extent that most people thought about RadioShack at all, it was as a convenient place to grab some printer ink or a hearing-aid battery.

Between 2004 and 2009, the company’s profits fell by 39 percent. It had gotten to the point where, early last year, executives were putting a little too much hope on the nationwide switch-over to digital TV, imagining that folks coming in to buy conversion boxes could be seduced into other, more expensive purchases, too. But the little old ladies with coupons for government-subsidized antennas were resistant to impulse buys.

Still, where giant specialty retailers like the Good Guys and Circuit City rode the electronics boom and bust right into bankruptcy, RadioShack has survived, although that survival was less a matter of salesmanship than cost-cutting. Around the time new CEO Julian Day took over in 2006, the company liquidated poorly selling inventory, closed 481 stores, and squeezed $100 million out of administrative expenses; even the houseplants in RadioShack stores were sold — to employees for $5 each — to save on the cost of watering them.

One of Day’s other priorities has been to meticulously homogenize RadioShack stores, á la McDonald’s and Starbucks. Whereas the company once gave store managers an astounding amount of autonomy, a recently distributed internal handbook provides precise instructions for everything from organizing merchandise on the show floor to which cleaning fluid they must use to shine their metallic lower shelves. (Armor All Original formula, if you’re wondering.) Another page presents, with a series of painstakingly annotated photographs, the head-to-toe elements of the only two acceptable styles of dress for salespeople: Traditional Business (tie, optional vest or blazer, light-colored shirt, dress shoes) and RadioShack Casual (black, white, or red shirt, no tie, dress loafers).

Day’s efforts have made the company look better on paper, but it was only when it began to sell itself as a place to comparison-shop for wireless phones and calling plans that RadioShack began to seem viable again.

It may seem strange that, finding themselves in a financial morass, executives decided their best option was to compete head-to-head with both the wireless carriers’ own stores and the cell phone departments of giants like Walmart and Best Buy. But they may have had little choice: The average RadioShack store is only 2,500 square feet and can’t possibly stock a competitive selection of large appliances like flatscreen TVs. (Managers have had to stash merchandise in the rafters or rent off-site storage units in the run-up to Christmas.) Cell phones, on the other hand, like the parts and pieces the company once thrived on, are small products with exceptionally high profit margins. There’s the handset and the accessories, but most important, there’s the commission that wireless carriers pay to cell phone retailers for every new contract on a phone. A phone is like a tiny slot machine that pays off month after month.

The logic is hard to resist, and in fact, RadioShack’s focus on wireless has been building gradually for at least the past decade — always at the direct expense of hobbyists, says Tim Oldham, a former corporate buyer at the company. “They intentionally decided to downsize the product offering for hobbyists, all the capacitors and resistors and connectors,” in order to cram in more phones, Oldham says. “It’s not coincidental. The money was just too big.”

Some history:

In a single generation, the American who built, repaired, and tinkered with technology has evolved into an entirely new species: the American who prefers to slip that technology out of his pocket and show off its killer apps. Once, we were makers. Now most of us are users.

“We are not looking for the guy who wants to spend his entire paycheck on a sound system,” RadioShack’s chair, Charles Tandy, bragged to analysts in the mid-1970s. “We are in the do-it-yourself business.”

Craftiness was in Tandy’s bloodline. He cut his teeth helming the family business, the Tandy Leather Company, which sold leather and leatherworking tools to veterans’ hospitals and Boy Scouts. The cigar-chomping Texan was the kind of eccentric, larger-than-life executive that any modern PR handler would keep tightly muzzled. He celebrated his 60th birthday by riding a rented elephant around the grounds of his mansion, and he kept a plastic breast on his desk that made a gong sound when he pressed the nipple. It was how he called for more coffee.

Tandy recognized that leatherworking was probably not a growth industry, and in 1963 he strong-armed his board of directors into buying and pouring money into RadioShack, then a 42-year-old company with nine stores. RadioShack quickly ballooned into a chain of more than 6,000 locations, becoming a kind of cluttered general store for the pioneers of the electronic age. That growth was spurred on in the mid-’70s, when the company smartly got in front of one particular technological fad: the CB radio craze. At the peak of the boom, RadioShack was opening three new stores a day. (“Americans sure like to jabber,” a befuddled executive told the press.)

This is not to say Charles Tandy himself was an early adopter or technogical visionary. According to the book Tandy’s Money Machine, by Irvin Farman, when a RadioShack vice president rushed down to Tandy’s departing Lincoln Continental to tell him they had created a promising prototype of a computer, Tandy shot back, “A computer? Who needs a computer?” Nevertheless, by 1977, the company was preparing to unveil the TRS-80, the world’s first mass-produced, fully assembled PC.

“I remember the TRS-80 very well,” says Forrest Mims. At the time, Mims had already begun his career writing how-to books like Getting Started in Electronics and Engineer’s Notebook, definitive editions in the world of hobby electronics that have sold more than 2 million copies. The books were written exclusively for RadioShack and were offered in stores for a few dollars each. They were essentially giveaways; the real money came from all the diodes, transistors, and tools that hobbyists needed to build the circuits he diagrammed. It was a shrewd tactic. Those little parts and pieces had huge markups — some as high as 500 percent — and RadioShack could fit lots of them in its relatively small stores.

Mims was invited to take a look at the TRS-80, before it went on sale, at a RadioShack R&D unit located in a warehouse in downtown Fort Worth. The two young engineers who had developed the machine led him around. “They escorted me into this room,” Mims recalls. “It was all hush-hush.” Inside, arrayed on long tables, were two dozen TRS-80s, with cassette decks for data storage and 12-inch RCA monitors. They were being tested, and each had an image on its screen of a waving American flag. “It was really a shock,” Mims says. He had never seen 24 computers in a room before; in those days, if you wanted a personal computer, you pretty much had to build it yourself.

One of the engineers invited Mims to sit down and try out the TRS-80 — just fool around on it a little. He declined. “I didn’t have a clue how to use the thing,” he says. Mims was an expert engineer, but he didn’t know anything about the machine’s programming language, Basic.

A new era was beginning. Computers, and all consumer electronic goods, were on their way to becoming what they are today: slick low-cost commodities heaped in the aisles of big-box stores. When they break, it’s cheaper to throw them out than open them up and repair them, and most can’t be sold for the kind of profit margins required by small stores like RadioShack. In retrospect, the launch of the TRS-80 was probably the most promising moment in RadioShack’s history — and the start of its decline.

“Let’s put it this way,” Mims says. “Hobby electronics peaked with the advent of the ready-made PC. There was no longer a need for anyone to build digital displays and TTL processors in their garage or spend time messing with circuitry. Now you could spend time at a keyboard, working on an actual computer.” It was a fulfillment of a dream. But it also served as a portent that the hands-on way of life RadioShack embodied would become irrelevant.

Mims couldn’t use the TRS-80 that day because he knew much more about how that piece of technology was wired on the inside than how to do anything with it. In other words, he was the exact opposite of today’s typical consumer. And that cultural shift is what RadioShack has been struggling with ever since.

Pringles in Singapore

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

The Pringles in Singapore come in slightly different flavors than I’m used to: seaweed, soft-shell crab, and grilled shrimp. I suppose curry wasn’t exotic enough to photograph.

(Hat tip to Boing Boing.)

Powerful People Are Better Liars

Monday, May 24th, 2010

Powerful people are better liars — but which way does the causality run?

Dana Carney divided research subjects into two groups: bosses and employees. Bosses got larger offices and more power; they were asked, for instance, to assign employees’ salaries. Half of all subjects were instructed by a computer to steal a $100 bill. If they could convince an interviewer they hadn’t taken it, they could keep it. The other subjects were questioned as well. In the interviews, lying bosses displayed fewer involuntary signs of dishonesty and stress. On all measures, liars with power were hard to distinguish from subjects telling the truth.
[...]
We measured subjects on five variables that indicate lying — involuntary shoulder shrugs, accelerated speech, the level of the stress hormone cortisol in their saliva, cognitive impairment, and emotional distress. Only the low-power liars could be “seen” as lying; the readings for the liars with power were essentially the same as those for truth tellers on all five variables. People with power lied more easily and effectively, which is troubling.

(Hat tip to Robin Hanson.)

Backyard gardens become income generators in lean times

Sunday, May 23rd, 2010

Backyard gardens become income generators in lean times:

Since the economy took a dive three years ago, [chef de cuisine Ken] Takayama and others say they’ve seen more and more people showing up unannounced at restaurants, local markets and small retailers, looking to sell what they’ve foraged or grown in their backyards.

No one keeps track of the number of people selling their homegrown bounty, but scores of ads have cropped up on Craigslist across the country, hawking local produce, home-filtered honey and backyard eggs.

One Los Angeles resident with a lemon tree posted an offering on Craigslist to let customers “save over 50% over Vons, Ralphs, etc. $1.00/pound.” At the Orange County Swap Meet, officials said the number of people selling home-canned beans and other homemade edibles grew to 30 vendors this month, up from eight vendors in early 2007.

In the South, hunters are selling venison and wild boar meat. In the Midwest, people are combing the forests for morel mushrooms, which can fetch $10 to $40 a pound.

Tacey Perkins decided her best customers may be the neighbors around her Riverside County home. Last fall, the mother of two and former real estate agent posted a sign on her front lawn in Mira Loma advertising home-grown pumpkins. She sold $100 worth.

Start In The Middle

Friday, May 21st, 2010

When it comes time to start a new project, you should start in the middle, not at the beginning:

Has this ever happened to you? You wake up one day with a great new idea for applying bayesian filtering to twitter streams to filter out the pictures of Joel’s new puppy spam. You’re totally convinced it’s what the world needs. It’s the startup that’s finally going to help you to break out of your day job maintaining PHP payroll software stock supermarket shelf stockers. So what do you do? You do this:

  1. Fire up your IDE and start a new website project
  2. Whip up a login page and get the user account basics set up
  3. Decide OpenID’s really where it’s at these days and hit stackoverflow for a good OpenID provider plugin
  4. Run into problems getting it to accept Google accounts and spend half the night debugging it

Wait, what? How did this happen? Getting OpenID working isn’t fun. It’s almost the definition of not fun.

I didn’t want to do all this, I just wanted to make an awesome bayesian twitter filter, but somehow there’s all this stuff I have to get through first.

— Me (swear words redacted)

My hard disk is littered with projects that I started, got half way through setting up without ever really getting to the good bit, then abandoned. I suspect yours is, too.

The right way to start a bayesian twitter filter is to apply a bayesian filter to content from a twitter stream. I know. It looks like this:

  1. Google for some bayesian filter code
  2. Dump whatever’s in your twitter client logs to a file and write three lines of python to parse it into a form the bayesian filter can work with
  3. Train the filter and see what happens

Compared to the original approach it looks awesome, right? So what stops us approaching all projects like this? Well, there’s something beguiling about wanting to get the framework right from the start this time. It’s more comfortable starting with something we already know how to solve. Sometimes we have a clear vision of how it should end up in our heads and simply start to create that vision from the beginning through to the end.

Start in the middle.

— Paul Graham (lightly paraphrased)

Lean startups and the Minimum Viable Product are all about starting in the middle. Paul Graham’s advice for startups can be summed up as ‘first solve the interesting part of the problem, then build the business around it’, but the process is also fractal — starting in the middle applies right down to the level of writing a new class, or a single function. First write some code that solves the problem even if it’s imperfect or partial, then expand it out with your favourite blend of accessors, inheritance and polymorphism (Note: don’t even bother with that bit unless you hate yourself).

The Three-Minute Rule

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Anthony Tjan suggests the three-minute rule:

While there are obvious ways to gain significant customer understanding, such as surveys and focus groups, some of the most interesting insights come from less direct analyses. Take our three-minute rule as an example. You can learn a great deal about customers by studying the broader context in which they use your product or service. To do this, ask what your customer is doing three minutes immediately before and three minutes after he uses your product or service.

An example:

At Thomson, one of our products provided investment analysts with financial earnings data. What we hadn’t fully appreciated — until we applied the three-minute rule — was that immediately after getting our data, a large number of analysts were painstakingly importing it into Excel and reformatting it. This observation led us to prioritize developing a more seamless Excel plug-in feature with enhanced formatting capability over other product development initiatives. The result was an almost immediate and very significant uplift in sales.

(Hat tip to Kevin Meyer, who doesn’t normally like the Harvard Business Review.)

The Inevitable Conclusion of Work Well Done

Monday, May 10th, 2010

A volcano erupts in Iceland, the European air freight system slams to a halt, stores run out of products, and manufacturers run out of parts — and it’s lean manufacturing’s fault. That inane mantra has been repeated over and over again ad nauseum in the past weeks. The same nonsense is spewed any time something happens that having a mountain of inventory sitting somewhere would have solved.

It’s about time, not inventory, Bill Waddell says:

The objective of lean is to cut cycle times. The fact that inventory dollars go down as a result is all well and good, but that is only because inventory is the manifestation of cycle times. Reducing inventory value is not, in and of itself, a lean objective. Reducing inventories without fixing the underlying problems that cause the need for the inventories is not only ‘not lean’ — it is just plain stupid.

Inventory turns is not a measure of ‘leanness’. All lean companies have high inventory turns, but all companies with high inventory turns are not necessarily lean. Inventory turnver is a financial measure — meaning that almost by definition it is (1) inaccurate and (2) grossly over-rated.

For instance:

There are two parts — a $100 part and a $5 part. They both turn at a snail-like twice a year. In scenario #1 you reduce the inventory of the expensive part by 67%, but make no improvement in the cheap part. In scenario #2 you reduce the inventories of both parts by 50%.

In the first scenario you made greater improvement to inventory turns, but you still have an overall cycle time of 6 months because that is how long it takes you to get the longest cycle time part needed to produce. In the second scenario your overall cycle time went down from six months to four months. Dismal even after you have finished, but the point is made. Even though the first scenario resulted in better financial inventory turns, the length of time it takes to execute the supply chain is no better. You are just as dependent on forecasting as you were before.

The problem with financial inventory turns is that it assumes that reducing the inventory of the $100 part is 20 times more valuable to the company than reducing the inventory of the $5 part. In fact, the cost of the part has no bearing whatsoever with the amount of waste the part is driving through the system. Part #2 may well be bigger and bulkier, driving more wasted floor space and more material handling and storage cost.

Obviously the ideal scenario would be to reduce the cycle times of both parts — improving execution, reducing waste and improving financial inventory turns all at the same time. The point, however, is that it is not only possible but fairly easy to reduce inventory dollars and show an improvement to financial inventory turns without really making any meaningful improvements to the supply chain or factory execution.

Lean doesn’t care about inventory dollars. It cares about waste. There are reasons for having all of that inventory — long supplier lead times, long set-up times resulting in batch production, geographic and logistics issues forcing purchasing by truck and container loads, and exposure to risk in the supply chain. All of these things (and more) drive waste into the total cost — floor space, handling, exposure to quality problems, transactions and cycle counting to keep on top of it all, and on and on. The objective of lean is to get rid of these costs. That means rooting out the underlying problems and resolving them, then shortening the cycle times, and the inevitable result of that effort is the reduction of inventory and better turns — but that is just a side benefit.

The masthead from my web site is a Henry Ford quote, “Profit is the inevitable conclusion of work well done” that I believe encapsulates the driving principle of lean. I think a corollary might be “inventory reduction is the inevitable conclusion of work well done”. But it is just that — an inevitable result but not the goal.

The Little Teeny Farm Fantasy

Sunday, May 9th, 2010

The little teeny farm fantasy pops up again and again, Nathan Lewis says, but, while little teeny farms make for wonderful hobbies, they make for terrible farms and terrible cities:

Some people have been pushing the notion that a family of four can be sustained with a 3000 square foot garden.

Oh really? That’s about 50×60 feet. Which is actually a pretty large garden, by hobby garden standards.

Let’s think about this.

A square mile has 27.878 million square feet. There are 640 acres in a square mile. Each acre has 43,560 square feet. Thus, 3,000 square feet is 0.0689 acres. This is about the size of a typical “suburban backyard garden,” if you use most of the available space.

The highest calories per acre are probably attained with grains, such as wheat or rice. You aren’t going to get there with lettuce and asparagus.

One of the highest naturally-obtained grain yields per acre that I know of is Masanobu Fukuoka’s farm in Japan. Using all natural techniques, he averaged 1,300 pounds of rice per quarter-acre, which is probably the highest natural rice yield in the world. That’s 5,200 pounds per ace. Rice farms in California can do up to 9,000 lbs per acre of rice, with chemical fertilizers, irrigation, GMO seeds, optimal climate and so forth.

For 2007-2008, the average U.S. wheat yield per acre was 41 bushels per acre. A bushel of wheat has 60 pounds. So, that’s 2,460 pounds of wheat per acre. That is with every sort of chemical fertilizer, genetically-modified seed, pesticide and so forth. (Single farms using corn can do much better. The record for a single farm in 2002 was 442 bushels of corn per acre.)

The average wheat yield per acre in the U.S. in 1899 was 12.5 bushels, or 750 pounds. This represents professional farmers with refined traditional technique but without chemical fertilizers, GMO seeds and so forth. Clumsy amateur farmers would do well under this.

Since I will assume that the prospective gardener will not be using chemical fertilizers or GMO seeds, let’s take the 1899 average. Thus, at 750 pounds/acre and 0.0689 acres, we get 52 pounds of wheat.

There is some loss as the wheat is processed into flour. However, let’s just use that figure. At 1,700 calories/pound, that’s about 88,400 calories of food energy. With four people in the family, that’s 22,100 calories per person. At 2,500 calories per day for an adult (could be higher especially if outdoor labor is involved), that’s 8.84 days’ worth of food per person. I suppose kids will eat a little less.

So, we can see that your little 3000sf garden certainly will not feed a family for a year. It might feed a family for a week, and that’s only if they like plain bread a lot.

Let’s say you are an ultimate natural farming master, like Fukuoka. Then, your 3000sf garden would produce about 358 pounds of rice in a year. I’ll spare you the math, but it works out to 61 days of food per person per year.
[...]
What could be possible, and what most of the “little teeny farm” advocates are really talking about, is producing fresh fruits and vegetables. They aren’t really talking about producing grains, beans, meats (usually), dairy or oils, which can amount to 80% or more of the typical diet. Can you produce enough lettuce, tomatoes and zucchini in your 3000sf hobby garden to give/sell some of it to your friends and neighbors during the summer and harvest season? With a bit of basil and thyme? Sure, and why not? If you already have a suburban backyard, you might as well grow zucchini or blueberries instead of grass. This is fun. That’s what makes backyard gardening a fun hobby. But, there’s a difference between having some fresh zucchini in August, and feeding a family for an entire year.

One reason I call this a “hobby” is that it doesn’t make a good business. Let’s say you want to grow lettuce in your suburban backyard hobby garden, and sell it to your neighbors. Great! Who wouldn’t love local, fresh-grown lettuce instead of something from 3000 miles away? Let’s say you sell lettuce for $2 a head. If you sold a thousand heads of lettuce, you would have gross revenue of $2000. Think about the labor and expense involved in growing and harvesting and selling (don’t forget the selling) a thousand heads of lettuce, from your suburban backyard garden. You better love lettuce. For this, you get $2000 of revenue, per year, before covering your expenses. It probably works out to less than minimum wage. You would only do it “for fun.” That’s why I call it a hobby.