zlacker

>>babelf+(OP)
Surprising reference to The Goal [1], which Mr. Beast "used to make everyone read ..." and still recommends. The Goal is a business novel about optimizing manufacturing processes for throughput and responsiveness rather than "efficiency" and is filled with counter-intuitive insights. Presenting it as a novel means you get to see characters grapple with these insights and fail to commit before truly understanding them. Excellent stuff, along the lines of The Phoenix Project [2], with which I assume many here are already familiar.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Goal_(novel) [2] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17255186-the-phoenix-pro...

>>Zanni+H8
Theory of Constraints is fascinating because, as MrBeast points out here, it seems extremely obvious. I've had numerous interactions on this site where a person dismisses an insight from ToC as "obvious" and then 2 sentences later promulgates the exact type of intuition that ToC disproves.

>>llamai+ka
Yeah, this is the brilliance of the novel format. Someone presents an insight, and it can see obvious in isolation but then seems obviously wrong in context. "Of course we should favor throughput over efficiency" is obvious until you realize it means, for example, allowing idle time on incredibly expensive machines to favor responsiveness, which just seems wasteful.

In the novel, you get to see the characters bang their heads against these "paradoxes" again and again until it sinks in.

>>Zanni+Yb
>is obvious until you realize it means, for example, allowing idle time on incredibly expensive machines to favor responsiveness, which just seems wasteful.

Weird how things that seem to make sense in one context seem to make no sense in another context. If you told me a factory runs their widget making machine at 70% capacity in case someone comes along with an order for a different widget or twice as many widgets, at first glance think that's a bad idea. If your customers can keep your widget machine 100% full, using only part of the machine for the chance that something new will come along seems wasteful. And through cultural osmosis the idea of not letting your hardware sit idle is exactly the sort of thing that feels right.

And yet, we do this all the time in IT. If you instead of a widget machine told me that you run your web server at 100% capacity all the time, I'd tell you that's also a terrible idea. If you're running at 100% capacity and have no spare headroom, you can't serve more users if one of them sends more requests than normal. Even though intuitively we know that a machine sitting idle is a "waste" of compute power, we also know that we need capacity in reserve because demand isn't constant. No one sizes (or should size) their servers for 100% utilization. Even when you have something like a container cluster, you don't target your containers to 100% utilization, if for no other reason than you need headroom while the extra containers spin up. Odd that without thinking that through, I wouldn't have applied the same idea to manufacturing machinery.

>>tpmone+Dk
> using only part of the machine for the chance that something new will come along seems wasteful.

Because it is. My brother works in industrial manufacturing machinery supplies. I can assure you the overwhelming majority of manufacturing machines on the planet are not only run constantly but as near to 99.999% as possible. So much that they are even loath to turn them off for critical maintenance rather preferring to let the machine break down so they don't get blamed for being the person to "ruin productivity"

This book sounds like one of those flights of fancy armchair generals are so found of going on.

Perhaps it works in small boutique shops making specialized orders but that is a slim minority of the overall manufacturing base. I could see why the advice would appeal to HN readers.

>>citize+r51
Yeah it mostly only works for small boutique shops like the Toyota Production System or Ford’s manufacturing line.

And yes, a lot of manufacturing doesn’t behave this way. That’s the “counter” part of “counter-intuitive” revealing itself.

This comment is yet another of these excellent cases in point!

You really don’t see how “they’re afraid to turn them off even for critical maintenance” might be actually suboptimal behavior in the long run?

>>llamai+Tk1
Edit: Sry, missed your Poe's law. People buy fords because they are cheaper for the most part. People that have more money buy Toyota. This is just market segmentation of a couple of the biggest brands.

Companies that have hammered out an effective cost/production/time ratio are not something you can compete with without becoming the same thing as them. Which is why factory managers are literally afraid to turn them off for any reason.

My brother constantly tells me about how when they do repairs they will see something within 1-3 months of failing and tell the factory manager. He said almost without exception they always ask will it increase the repair time "TODAY" and of course the answer is yes. They always decline and deal with it when it breaks at a greater time/cost. I think this is more an effect of the toxic work relationship that has become forced on everyone by MBA's.