Hacker News Reader

Comment by civilian | Hacker News Reader

Organizations are bad at communication. How do you disseminate that the information that "look guys, bicycles are fragile too" to ten of thousands of logistics workers?

This is an awesome hack, and it's a great way to fix behavior without having to collide with bureaucracy.

It's not ethically fraudulent because the shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. And I'm sure they do pay fees for what they break, and the shipping company is trying to do what it can fix that, but putting a picture of a TV on the box is still more effective than whatever the shipping company is trying.

I'm scared to think what else you would view as ethical fraud, if pictures-on-boxes qualifies. I tell baristas that I want "room for cream" in my Americano. But I never put cream in it--- I just want less volume so that when I walk I won't spill hot coffee on my hand. #EthicalFraud

View on HN

Well I didn't say it was a huge deal necessarily. Just not totally clean. Perhaps fraud was a bad choice of words and I changed it. And I agree it's a very interesting hack.

I don't necessarily agree that a shipper shouldn't be breaking anything. I think that they should meet whatever the agreement was. If the agreement is "we'll try super hard not to break stuff" and they're clearly not holding up their side of the bargain when it comes to bikes, then sure, changing the picture is fair game. If the agreement is "we'll pay for anything that breaks", then they should determine how careful they want to be, since they're footing the bill for it. Making that determination for them by changing the picture, I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up.

I think it's ethically questionable to carelessly break things people are waiting for just because the thing is perceived to have low monetary value. The shipping company may have to eat the dollar cost of the item, but the cost to the sender and receiver in time and hassle is non-negligible.

I don't think it's about the monetary value. Your typical bike is more expensive than your typical TV (but your average shipping guy might think all bikes cost like the super-market ones)

I think it's just the perception that bikes are "rough" and that they can take a beating. Which is true, but only when fully assembled and driven on road/terrain, not when you bang at it from the side.

> I think is not totally honest, unless they also have a history of not paying up.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. So: Does their agreement say that the bike company will accurately represent their product on their packaging? If the bike company's holding up their end of whatever agreement they have, then there's nothing the least bit questionable about what they're doing.

> How do you disseminate that the information that "look guys, bicycles are fragile too" to ten of thousands of logistics workers?

A 3 paragraph email.

Sarcasm? Reading comprehension for emails is so bad. And these are blue collar workers that you're targeting. If anything I'd have it be an item in a weekly team meeting, but don't you think these workers are _always_ hearing the same thing? "Hey guys, HQ said we need to break less stuff. I know we're only at 0.2% breakage but corporate says we can do better." They probably don't really give a shit, or are already doing their best, and the picture on a box targets their subconscious.

If they were already doing their best, a picture on the side of the box wouldn't improve their performance.

It sure would. When "their best" is some tradeoff between speed and care.

If the workers treat every single package as if it were a Ming Dynasty vase, then their throughput will drop through the floor and that won't be their best.

If they treat every single package as if it were a box of rocks, then their breakage rate will skyrocket. That also won't be their best.

Putting the TV on the side of the box tells the worker to slide the scale closer to avoiding breakage and away from moving fast.

^ Couldn't have said it better. Best != perfect, it's always some kind of Nash equilibrium that makes the best tradeoffs available.

By your own hypothesis, putting the picture on the side of the box leads to worse performance, not better performance.

It leads to slower handling time on that package, and greater care for that package. Going back to the original comment in this thread, it does so in a way that's far more effective than a policy email would. It's not clear that the overall performance is degraded or enhanced by this technique.

My apologies if I failed to detect humor here. But in my experience a 3 paragraph email usually get's the message to about 10% of the audience. The other 90% will either not read it, read it but not take it very seriously, maybe they take it seriously at first, but then the effect wears off, etc. Especially if there are dozens of competing memos going out each month.

A photo of a TV on the side of the box tells the worker right then and there that this is both expensive and delicate, handle with care. It does it more than even "FRAGILE" does, because that's been abused to death already.

I suppose if everybody starts claiming their boxes are TVs, then the effect will wane as well. But this is way more effective than an easily-ignored memo.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com