Ask HN: What problem in your industry is a potential startup?

Not sure how much startup potential there is, but in my industry we struggle with adhering to procedures, and the root cause of that is because our procedures are written in the dark by management that doesn't always have a complete picture or much insight into what they're enforcing. The problem that creates is that employees only look for work-around's for the procedures (because they are misguided or misinformed most of the time) and it creates a bigger mess than if we had no procedures at all.

It's almost as though if we had a Procedural Consulting firm that could come in, look at the big picture, and help companies to create EFFICIENT and WORTHWHILE procedures that ACTUALLY do justice to the customer requirements without breaking the bank. Then they can sit everyone down and explain the procedures and enforce the assimilation that most companies usually have growing pains with.

I noticed that when moving to a new company that is trying to grow and achieve higher levels of accreditation. Management had intended a two-way assimilation to take place between my procedural knowledge and the procedures they already had in-place. What happened instead is old procedures are etched in stone and new ones are seen as an obstacle... The assimilation was one-way and the other middle-managers like myself are mainly concerned with keeping everything the same, despite there being improvements that could easily be made.

What you want, then, is more akin to a sandwich press rather than a toaster. Or perhaps a toaster oven. Mechanically, it's not impossible, but the design of a toaster (spring loaded release, heating elements on either side) can't be altered much without turning it into one of those two things (or a poor imitation of them).

These questions pop up every now and then, and while I get the intent, you're not gonna get anything useful out of it. The idea that someone who knows how to code can disrupt an industry that they are not a part of is disingenuous, and the examples that you can find are exceptions, not the rule. It's also extremely naive and presumptuous...what makes you think people in the industry haven't already tried? People who fall ill to this delusion end up in one of two categories: those that attack easy problems with tiny markets, and those that attack hard problems and spend decades learning about and becoming a part of the industry before they solve them.

As someone in the supply chain and logistics industry, I can list for you hundreds of people that know the traveling salesman problem and precisely why its not applicable to their situation. I know hundreds of people that already know how to better manage their safety stock than someone who suggests using Gaussian demand models. I know hundreds of people who can optimize last mile delivery costs orders of magnitude better than a drone engineer. I know hundreds of people who can manage inventory distribution and ordering automation better than someone who knows databases.

And sure, there are companies out there that are doing everything ass backwards and could use some help, even if it is primitive and simplistic. And when they decide to look for it, who are they gonna choose: the guy who saved Amazon $500M/year with their truck load optimization expertise, or you, with your shiny website and a trick you learned from a textbook?

So as a piece of advice, if you aren't part of the industry already, don't try to do B2B in that industry. B2C is fine, because as a consumer you are ostensibly a part of the industry...but B2B is a death march.

Great question, but I don't see this much different from other industries or companies with millions or billions of dollars at stake. They don't all roll their own software inhouse, and most companies (hedgefunds or not, small or even large) simply cannot afford to for financial and commercial risk-management reasons unless they can justify the software truly being a core competitive competency.

The same line of inquiry has been evaluated for most 3rd party software that companies rely on. For this specific instance of data collection and cleaning, I'm imagining it's not going to be a much different calculus, although perhaps you'll see a higher percentage of firms choosing to roll their own if they have the chops and pockets (e.g. Two Sigma, Bridgewater, Goldman Sachs, etc.).

I will note that there are commercial mechanisms firms could try to implement to try to limit the downsides in case something like this happens: warranty & damages provisions, and insurance are two come that spring to mind. I'm sure there are numerous other considerations in the age-old "build or buy" cost-benefit analysis.

There are probably a fair number of consulting firms you can find for that.

But another (part of the) solution is using workflow software. Something that allows you to define and share procedures, indicate status of various taskings along the defined workflows, move data and such along. This clarifies to the employees what's needed, and gives an opportunity for them to provide feedback for improvements (too much granularity, not enough, too inflexible, etc.). Management, then, also gets better insight into the actual status of projects and taskings. It's part of continuous improvement to constantly be evaluating these sorts of procedures and clarifying, culling, adding to them. Management that's unfamiliar with these concepts is just bad management.

In the manufacturing world, the Procedural Consulting firm would conduct "lean events". (NB: Many, if not most, places do this incorrectly.)

The correct way is to collect metrics (meaningful) over time, encourage and reward employee feedback about ways to improve things. Then improve them (sometimes as a move across the board, but often by conducting experiments to see how well the new concepts work, then roll out to everyone). The risk is that improved efficiency will obsolete employees, some fear this (like may have actual panic attacks about this level of fear). Instead, you need a culture that sees this improved efficiency as an opportunity for growth (the same number of employees can now do more once people get retasked to new things).