In business and life these days it seems like everything is telling you to strive for optimal. That seems like a logical idea, but for me at least it causes problems. The problem I’m referring to is the overwhelming feeling, the mountain that seems to be in front of you when you decide to optimise your life or business or anything.
In this piece I use a simple example to explain ‘Inconvenience’ and a live example from a large institution, one which is far from optimal, but could easily improve. We’ll identify a friction point in their system show why improving it would have massive effect.
Optimal
Optimal is an extreme. Optimal is the best something can get. It’s the 100% mark on the scale. How optimised to you need something? Maybe not as much as you think.
Here’s a fair statement on the general status of optimisation in our world. Most things work, more or less. Humans are excellent at muddling through and usually end up getting things done – eventually. We’re not an optimal species. We accept inconveniences like late public transport, airport queues, customer service, traffic – everything really!
Let’s put inconvenient at the other end of the optimal scale. You’ve a system, a process, a life, a job, an [insert your problem here] and it works – more of less, there’s just lots of inconveniences. Let’s not look at optimal, let’s look at a few causes of the inconveniences.
The Inconvenient truth
“The more inconvenient a thing is the more we accept it’s inconveniences. “
I’ve a fairly retro house designed in the 1970s, it still has some of the original features. One of these, is an ‘Armitage Shanks‘ wash hand basin located in a small WC in the garage. It’s this basin which gave rise to this piece. The location is available to rent for 1970’s period dramas if you’re in the film business.
The basin is inconveniently positioned. The door opens right beside the basin, you have to stand off centre to the left and lean right to use it. The controls (taps, faucets) are in the corner close to the basin back and wall, so they are hard to operate. The recently added shelf further hinders access, there’s usually cold water and no soap. Despite all that I use it. Why? Because I need clean hands…
Why are we talking about a basin? Stay with me…
Its core purpose, its primary function in the world is to allow the user to wash their hands. Simple right? So why isn’t it optimal? Why are there so may inconveniences in an object with a simple purpose?
The reason is – it works, more or less. Once the core inconveniences are created and accepted, they become just ‘the way’. We muddle through.
Do we need to optimise the basin? No – think of optional as the other extreme. We’re not trying to get to optimal, we don’t need a whole new basin or WC, But moving the basin two inches to the left would make it less inconvenient. Thus providing a better experience at carrying out it’s core function (wash hands) Thus – moving it towards optimal!
Core Purpose, Primary Function
If you understand how some inconveniences cause friction in delivering the primary function of the basin, then lets apply the hypostasis to a large institution.
There’s a transport app I use, it’s the TFI App (TFI – Transport for Ireland). It’s core purpose is to tell you when the bus is coming. Simple, right?
I’ve recently missed the bus a couple of times because of the accuracy of the information on it. Now this might not seem like a big deal, but in the context of the apps core purpose, it’s huge. If the app can’t accurately tell you when the bus is coming then it has no other purpose in this universe. When it’s wrong, I potentially miss the bus, that’s inconvenient.
This was a perfect opportunity to test the inconvenience hypostasis. Could I find where friction is in the system and take an opportunity to remove this inconvenience? I estimate the bus route serves about 4000* passengers per day, so if an improvement is achievable then there’s big upside for a lot of people.
(*4000 is based on a simple approximation based on them the them having 55 daily busses X 50 people and I’ve doubled it for the return legs. I’ve taken 75% of the result for margin of error. 55X50=(2700*2)=5400 *.75= 4050 the timetable is here. Note this is just one example service out of 1000’s of times & routes by multiple transport services provides on the app.)
The process to identify the friction point. .
TFI seem to be part of the NTA (National transport authority so it’s a semi-state company (I think) but I’m not sure where it starts and ends. So I decide I’ll start with the Operator of the bus on this route, which is Swords Express (Eirebus, We’ll refer to them as EB) After a bit of back and forth with EB the information I got back bus was:
“We have email tfi several times to get them to fix it, our timetable and live position is on our website.”
Ok no fix there but at least a prompt reply. It doesn’t seem like EB have the ability to fix the problem in the TFI app, it’s not in their domain it seems. However the mention of attempting to report it “Several times” indicates there’s a possible communication problem between TFI (The app operators) and EB (A transport service provider). Is that just between TFI and EB or does it apply to everyone? That’s unknown. But we’ve spotted a friction point, it’s definitely an inconvenience if the services providers on the app can’t communicate. I can check what kind of response I get from TFI myself. They list a support email on their website so I email that address and see what happens.
I try to concisely describe the issue in an email and I include the conversation with EB. I send all the info to the info@… address given.
I am initially pleasantly surprised to get a ticket number autoreply!
[Your enquiry has been received. Case reference #: CAS-144056-M6P4P1 NTA:00000080000233029]
However that enthusiasm reduces as I read on. I see some eyebrow raising service level agreement statement setting my expectations.
[Thank you for contacting the National Transport Authority. We have received your enquiry and will respond as soon as possible. We aim to respond within 15 working days. A copy of your enquiry is displayed below.]
15 working days! Wow 3 weeks. I try to picture 3 weeks into the future – wow the week after that we’re looking at the end of the month. I understand that problems take time to solve – but this is not a promise to solve the problem in 3 weeks, it’s an ‘Aim’ to respond in 3 weeks! Wow!
It’s at this point I realise that I’m probably never getting a reply, not in 3 weeks, or ever. It seems I’ve replicated the same thing the EB representative is experiencing.?(“We have email tfi several times to get them to fix it…”) So we’ve confirmed a communication friction point. Couple that with the 15 day service level aim and we’ve getting positive readings from our inconvenient meter….
15 working days pass and indeed it’s confirmed, no reply from TFI – They’ve missed their own Aim. I send a follow up email – I reply to the case email later just to double check (in case someone just missed it) 2 more weeks pass and there is still no response. 5 full weeks (25 working days) have passed since the initial report. I’ve never has any reply. So friction point number 2 identified.
Inconvenience identified
Are there many inconveniences in public transport? Yes. Are they all fixable, probably not. Are some of the inconveniences solvable – definitely. Do you need to spend millions of taxpayers funds hiring consultants to identify the problem? No. – I’ll do it for 100’s of thousands 🙂
It’s logical to assume that timetable data malfunctions are something that’s ‘not-uncommon’ in a transport timetabling apps. So if these issues are going to occur, then then it would seem logical that there is a good system for reporting and and fixing them. Creating a service and failing to create an ongoing support system for that service really is a common, lazy oversight.
In this example the ability of TFI to manage and cases seems to be leaning a little to the inconvenient side, wouldn’t you say? With very little work, there are obvious friction points identified in the TFI app system – how easy was that? Fix or improve these and you potentially make 4000 people per day better off…. X 365 that’s potentially a million+ journeys per year improved. All stemming from understanding the core function of the app.
Wrapping up
Think of something that’s on the extreme side of optimal, like online package delivery. A few years ago is was inconvenient. Now it’s almost optimal. 3 days, next day, same day, tracked, cheap, free.!. That’s the expected service level. Nobody’s waiting 3 weeks for a package that may not arrive, and imagine if you were not even sure if they got order..! The company would not last long, But it seems institutions like semi-state companies (rather arrogantly) think 3 weeks is an acceptable ‘Aim’ and think that it’s ok to just ignore it’s customers and not fix problems. The more inconvenient a thing is the more we accept it’s inconveniences.
Take away
Systems are always changing, they can be worked on forever without ever improving, we’ll go into that another time in a part 2. Rather than looking for optimal solutions in big systems or institutions maybe we can just remember it’s core function, identify and improve any friction points that prevent that core function happening optimally.
Start by defining a core function, (Remember The basin’s core function – wash hands). What’s yours? What’s your departments? What’s your companies / organisation’s function? What are they there to do?
Understanding the core function is a good place to begin. Then make small (micro) changes towards that purpose and you will move towards optimisation.
Part 2 to be continued…
Making changes can cause other inconvenience.
I’ve 100’s of functions, where do I start?
I’ve no function….
Leave a Reply