Jeff Bezos and Root Cause Analysis • Hacker News Board

Re: Jeff Bezos and Root Cause Analysis

#21

Post by coderrr » Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 6:21 PM UTC

Why did the associate damage his thumb? Because his thumb got caught in the conveyor.

Why did his thumb get caught in the conveyor? Because he was chasing his bag, which was on a running conveyor.

Why did he chase his bag? Because he placed his bag on the conveyor, but it then turned-on by surprise

Why didn't he hit the off button on the conveyor instead of chasing it? Because he wans't near the off button?

Why don't we have multiple off buttons so you're never far from one? That's expensive, let's buy some tables instead.

Re: Jeff Bezos and Root Cause Analysis

#22

Post by byrneseyeview » Sun, Jan 25, 2009, 7:15 PM UTC

gruseom wrote: post #14

byrneseyeview wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because they do the software stuff right, but a huge number of their employees are schlepping boxes in warehouses, or doing customer service? Anyway, it's not an especially big deal to me that they would fire someone for taking too many sick days right before Christmas. If they disclose this to employees beforehand, they're likely to weed out people who tend to take sick days, whether for legitimate reasons…

I've also heard from software people that it isn't a good place to work. In fact, I've only heard it from software people. I haven't talked to or read blog posts from anyone who's worked in their warehouses.

What kinds of complaints have you heard about them?

Re: Jeff Bezos and Root Cause Analysis

#23

Post by ChaitanyaSai » Mon, Jan 26, 2009, 4:40 AM UTC

h34t wrote: post #18

ChaitanyaSai wrote: post #3

Kind of off-topic, but does Yahoo (or is it the publisher?) really think that interjecting ads in the middle of a narrative actually makes people want to click on the link? Do they really not know the least about human psychology? Most people who get to that point in the article have an inertial interest in finishing, and also a bias towards skimming over any contextual discontinuity. There are contrast effects that…

I would guess they pay more attention to what works and what doesn't than to psychological theory or conjecture. It's easy for anyone to monitor what kind of ads perform better than others, and since ads are much of Yahoo's bread and butter, you can be sure they are paying attention.

I agree. So I should rephrase my question. Do these ads really perform better than footnote ads? I wouldn't be surprised if the higher clickthroughs are accidental (which, I am sure they measure for).

Re: Jeff Bezos and Root Cause Analysis

#24

Post by extension » Tue, Jan 27, 2009, 4:13 AM UTC

potatolicious wrote: post #19

extension wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I commented about this on the linked site and it was deleted. Adding a table strikes me distinctly as ignoring the root of the problem, which probably has more to do with safety standards and training. There has to be a more robust way to prevent accidents than luring people away from them. So, ironically, this seems to be an example of asking too many questions, and we're not even at 5 yet.

Actually, "luring" people away from accidents is often a better way than strict training. "Don't jay-walk across the freeway" will only work when a viable (and safe) crossing is close by. Otherwise your users will simply ignore your training to make their lives easier.

True, and I'm all for that kind of thinking in addition to common sense precautions. Maybe that was the case and there were huge signs and training manuals and off buttons all over the place but coderr's scenario sounds more likely.

My larger point is that failure analysis is complicated and full of red herrings. Simplifying it to "five whys" (or four, or six) only creates false security.