Sarah and I are getting married shortly. Our good friends Meredith and Brantley, who have kindly consented to oversee the wedding ceremony, are eventually going to ask Sarah and myself a few questions. The version directed to me will likely follow the lines of "Rob, will you have Sarah to be your wife?" I am expected to answer. More specifically, I am expected to answer "I will." I'll probably do that. Below, however, in honor of today's holiday, are a few alternative responses I have been considering:
1. I guess, sure whatever
2. Wow, that's a tough question!
3. Do you need an answer now? Can I think about this?
4. Wait, what?
5. Reply hazy, ask again later
6. I'm sorry, I wasn't listening, can you repeat that?
7. Depends. What's in it for me?
8. Keen! Yeah, wow, that sounds like an excellent idea! Let's do that!
9. Smile you're on Candid Camera! (for those of you in the younger generation, your equivalent would be: "You just got Punk'd!")
10. Wait, did you say Sarah?
In the interests of surviving the evening, I think I'll stick to the more traditional script...
Thursday, April 01, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Good People to Know
In April 2008 a man identifying himself by the name of Wesley Wyndham-Price stood to make a comment in the Salt Lake City Council and berated them for their lack of emergency preparation. His chief complaint was that the city had no plan in place to deal with a zombie outbreak. The City Council, for a variety of reasons, including the date, did not take him seriously. They have not had reason to regret this yet, but they might.
Like them, I do not have a specific zombie plan, but I have at least thought about it and even gone as far as to read some of the literature available. Honestly, though, I'm something of a procrastinator, and I haven't quite gotten around to working on the problem. I have, however, made a list of those people who would be most useful to stick with in the event of a zombie outbreak.
It is an important question. When the zombies rise you're going to need a variety of skills and abilities to survive, but large groups are hard to hide and more susceptible to hidden carriers. So you want to pack each person in the group with the most skills you can. Anyone who can do many things will be more valuable than the person who is useful for only one. You just have to make sure there's overlap so the loss of one member won't cripple the group.
I'd want Sarah with me, of course, she's an excellent shot. Holly can drive anything from bike to bus and her husband Wade is really good with tools, so they'd be welcome. They'd probably want to bring their son, but humanity needs a future so that's okay, too, I guess. Ex-ranger current-cop Lockard seems like an easy pick, but then again if he gets turned on us, he'd be a really hard zombie to put down. Still, I think the ranger training would outweigh that danger. The list goes on.
In fact, this week, I added another person, my brother's girlfriend Ellie. Bill has always been on the list and his recent firefighter experiences only make him more valuable (he's chainsaw certified!). Ellie is even better. I spent a weekend with them and my father at a Wilderness First Aid class and every story I heard from Ellie just further demonstrated her fitness for a zombie survival group. She's a former EMT with significant wilderness medical skills (she was recertifying as a Wilderness First Responder and one of the most knowledgeable people in the room after the instructors). Besides that, though (remember, a variety of skills in each person is key), she can maintain and repair pretty much any automobile you throw at her. Perhaps most importantly, she has demonstrated an ability to adapt to a variety of evolving situations, keeping a cool head when it's most necessary, as it certainly will be during a zombie outbreak. I must admit, I'm pretty excited to add her to my zombie survivor group list.
It's a pretty good list. I'm pleased with it, with one glaring omission. I'm not on it. I don't offer many of the skills that would be required to survive the outbreak. Zombies haven't been shown to be deterred by attractive product design, I'm afraid. Thinking about it further, though, I have realized that I do have one thing I can offer and it's pretty crucial. I have the list. Think about that when the outbreak comes and you're gathering your band of survivors. Call me first. Please?
Like them, I do not have a specific zombie plan, but I have at least thought about it and even gone as far as to read some of the literature available. Honestly, though, I'm something of a procrastinator, and I haven't quite gotten around to working on the problem. I have, however, made a list of those people who would be most useful to stick with in the event of a zombie outbreak.
It is an important question. When the zombies rise you're going to need a variety of skills and abilities to survive, but large groups are hard to hide and more susceptible to hidden carriers. So you want to pack each person in the group with the most skills you can. Anyone who can do many things will be more valuable than the person who is useful for only one. You just have to make sure there's overlap so the loss of one member won't cripple the group.
I'd want Sarah with me, of course, she's an excellent shot. Holly can drive anything from bike to bus and her husband Wade is really good with tools, so they'd be welcome. They'd probably want to bring their son, but humanity needs a future so that's okay, too, I guess. Ex-ranger current-cop Lockard seems like an easy pick, but then again if he gets turned on us, he'd be a really hard zombie to put down. Still, I think the ranger training would outweigh that danger. The list goes on.
In fact, this week, I added another person, my brother's girlfriend Ellie. Bill has always been on the list and his recent firefighter experiences only make him more valuable (he's chainsaw certified!). Ellie is even better. I spent a weekend with them and my father at a Wilderness First Aid class and every story I heard from Ellie just further demonstrated her fitness for a zombie survival group. She's a former EMT with significant wilderness medical skills (she was recertifying as a Wilderness First Responder and one of the most knowledgeable people in the room after the instructors). Besides that, though (remember, a variety of skills in each person is key), she can maintain and repair pretty much any automobile you throw at her. Perhaps most importantly, she has demonstrated an ability to adapt to a variety of evolving situations, keeping a cool head when it's most necessary, as it certainly will be during a zombie outbreak. I must admit, I'm pretty excited to add her to my zombie survivor group list.
It's a pretty good list. I'm pleased with it, with one glaring omission. I'm not on it. I don't offer many of the skills that would be required to survive the outbreak. Zombies haven't been shown to be deterred by attractive product design, I'm afraid. Thinking about it further, though, I have realized that I do have one thing I can offer and it's pretty crucial. I have the list. Think about that when the outbreak comes and you're gathering your band of survivors. Call me first. Please?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Adventures in Retail, Cont'd: Checking Out
The last time we discussed my retail work, we looked at the returns desk. Today I thought we could take a look at the actual checkout lanes. One of the performance goals given to the cashiers at my store is to be fast. There are other goals, but fast is the only one that is objectively measured. The system actually times how long it takes from the moment the first item is scanned to the moment the receipt is printed. The time is fed into an algorithm along with other factors including how many items were involved, the payment method, and, presumably, shoe size, I guess. All I see at the end is whether I succeeded or failed to process the transaction fast enough. I get to see this indicator after every transaction alongside a number indicating my percentage of successes. The system doesn't actually ask for perfection (which is fortunate, since there are a surprising number of ways for the customer to trip you up), but I didn't get as far as I did in school by being happy with B's. That little percentage sign is a pretty motivating number for me.
It's also, like most metrics, not quite properly aligned. As I've mentioned before, such a misalignment can cause some interesting problems. Perhaps the biggest difference between what this metric actually measures and what it is intended to improve emerges from the timing mechanism. The system does not start timing the customer experience until the first item is scanned and it stops after the payment is entered. This leaves room for a whole lot of sins on either end. Whenever possible, we try to take out all the clothing hangers before scanning the first item, so that time won't count against us. At the other end, I'll bag the trickiest things while the customer enters payment information. These before/after actions are probably in overall service to the goal of a fast checkout experience, but others are not.
It is, for example, in my best interest as cashier, to wait until the customer has placed a few items on the counter before I start scanning. This way I know my process won't be slowed much if the customer gets distracted (last minute gum decisions often lead to a failed time mark without this buffer). However, it's in the customer's best interest (and the overall, unmeasured, speed), if I start immediately. If a customer is paying in cash, it's in my best interests to anticipate what they'll be handing me since the timer stops as soon as the drawer opens. If I'm wrong, though, I have to recalculate change in my head and the overall time (but not the recorded time) goes up more than if I had just waited to see what they would find at the bottom of their purse.
These tricks, despite being partly counter-productive to the stated purpose, don't bother the managers. See, they're graded on how well their cashiers meet the time requirements, so they're the ones who taught me most of these tricks.
That's not to say it's a bad system. Those time losses are relatively minor most of the time. My real frustration with the algorithm is that it has no way to account for the impact of the customers. I get failure marks in places where I should be getting medals for dealing with some of these people. I have no specific stories, or rather I have too many, so I am instead presenting the information as a list of recommendations for how YOU can avoid being one of these customers.
It's also, like most metrics, not quite properly aligned. As I've mentioned before, such a misalignment can cause some interesting problems. Perhaps the biggest difference between what this metric actually measures and what it is intended to improve emerges from the timing mechanism. The system does not start timing the customer experience until the first item is scanned and it stops after the payment is entered. This leaves room for a whole lot of sins on either end. Whenever possible, we try to take out all the clothing hangers before scanning the first item, so that time won't count against us. At the other end, I'll bag the trickiest things while the customer enters payment information. These before/after actions are probably in overall service to the goal of a fast checkout experience, but others are not.
It is, for example, in my best interest as cashier, to wait until the customer has placed a few items on the counter before I start scanning. This way I know my process won't be slowed much if the customer gets distracted (last minute gum decisions often lead to a failed time mark without this buffer). However, it's in the customer's best interest (and the overall, unmeasured, speed), if I start immediately. If a customer is paying in cash, it's in my best interests to anticipate what they'll be handing me since the timer stops as soon as the drawer opens. If I'm wrong, though, I have to recalculate change in my head and the overall time (but not the recorded time) goes up more than if I had just waited to see what they would find at the bottom of their purse.
These tricks, despite being partly counter-productive to the stated purpose, don't bother the managers. See, they're graded on how well their cashiers meet the time requirements, so they're the ones who taught me most of these tricks.
That's not to say it's a bad system. Those time losses are relatively minor most of the time. My real frustration with the algorithm is that it has no way to account for the impact of the customers. I get failure marks in places where I should be getting medals for dealing with some of these people. I have no specific stories, or rather I have too many, so I am instead presenting the information as a list of recommendations for how YOU can avoid being one of these customers.
- Take your stuff out of the cart when you get to the lane. The next person does not have cooties.
- If you're carrying a basket, please empty it for me. Placing the full basket on the conveyor doesn't do either of us any favors.
- Use the divider bars provided. That gap you're leaving will just get eaten by the conveyor belt. I'll never see it. The bar does not have this problem.
- On a related note, if two of you arrive together, using the same cart and unloading at the same time, please don't expect me to assume you're paying separately, let alone guess where your stuff ends and hers begins. Seriously, just use the bar.
- If you have your own bags, please give them to me first. It's much easier and much faster than asking me to repack everything I've already put away.
- Finally, get your money out before I finish packing the bags. Even if you don't know the exact amount necessary, at least have the wallet ready. The bigger your purse is, the sooner you need to start looking. This goes double for checks. You already know the name of the store you're paying, so go ahead and get started.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)