I ripped open the bag, pulling out a sandwich and placing it on my kitchen counter.
Instantly, I stopped in my tracks.
The bag had my name on the outside of it. But the sandwich wrapper sported someone else’s name.
I pulled away the wrapper and took a closer look.
Nope! This was definitely not my sandwich.
Suddenly, I had a dilemma on my hands.
Do I return to the sandwich shop and alert them to the mix-up? Do I eat someone else’s sandwich? Do I just throw it away and eat the cost?
I ultimately went with the first option, heading back to the shop and making a mild scene. An attendant quickly fixed the issue.
I took a seat at a table near the cash register. Then, I devoured the newly-made sandwich like a ravenous dog.
On the way back home, I checked my mailbox.
To my dismay, the package I’d ordered weeks ago still hadn’t arrived.
I walked in the front door and jumped on my computer. It was time to get to the bottom of this.
The package’s tracking number had separate two delivery services tied to it. One service was supposed to hand off the package to the other during the delivery process. But there was no proof that this had been done.
I tried to reach out to each delivery service. One didn’t allow me to fill out a contact form at all. The other sought to wipe their hands of the whole ordeal.
Eventually, I was able to fill out a missing package form. I received an automated response that my claim “would be looked into.”
I’d spent hours my evening dealing with this issue. And yet, I was seemingly back where I started.
We’re in the golden age.
How often have we heard this in recent years?
Technology has turned science fiction into reality. We can buy clothes from our home or order food delivery with a single tap on our smartphones.
New horizons of logistics have helped deliver on these promises. Streamlined fulfillment has raised the bar for what businesses can deliver, and what we can expect.
Yes, the entire process is set up to just work. There’s no need to worry about what happens when we hit that Order button. We’ll get what we’re looking for. Guaranteed.
But what if we don’t?
It’s a question that we don’t consider. But maybe we should.
Make that definitely we should.
Nothing is foolproof.
You can take those three words to the bank.
Machines glitch. Humans falter. The tightest of supply chains can get gummed up. All despite our best efforts to avoid these scenarios.
Advanced technology and logistics can aid our cause, of course. Streamlined processes can reduce the chances of bad outcomes. But those same processes can expand the ways such bad outcomes can appear.
Take my sandwich adventure as an example. The mistake was innocuous enough. An attendant simply put a sandwich in the wrong bag. But when you add an automated ordering system to the mix, the fallout only grows.
How so? Consider the following.
For decades, there have been two ways to resolve sandwich mix-ups. The recipients could swap the misdirected sandwiches on their own. Or the sandwich shop could recreate the orders and distribute them properly.
Each process would be easy to pull off, right there at sandwich shop counter. But neither was available to me.
I ordered my sandwich ahead of time through the establishment’s smartphone app. The associates fulfilled the order – incorrectly, as it turns out – placed it in a paper bag and taped it shut. Then they left it on a Mobile Order shelf.
I picked up the bag from the shelf and brought it home before I unsealed it. That proved to be a mistake on my part. But even if I’d checked the order while inside the sandwich shop, it wouldn’t have fixed the issue.
For the man whose sandwich I received placed his order through a food delivery service. He was never going to set foot in the shop, under any circumstances. So, he’d face quite the ordeal to get what he ordered into his hands.
One simple mistake yielding two complex resolution paths hardly seems efficient. But all too often, it’s the new reality.
Nothing is foolproof. Whether we care to admit it or not.
In the early 2000s, an ecommerce company was all the rage.
The company was called Zappos, and it sold a wide selection of shoes online.
There were many attributes consumers liked about Zappos. The convenience of shopping from home. The wide selection of shoe brands. The competitive prices.
But what truly made the company stand apart was its customer service.
Throughout its heyday, Zappos had a dedicated customer support hotline. The number was easily visible on its website, and it would ring through to real representatives. These representatives would occasionally stay on the line with customers for hours – all to ensure their concerns were met.
This was far from the most efficient use of support staff. Yet, the Zappos brass refused to waver from this structure.
Zappos recognized that while its ecommerce operating model was efficient, it was not foolproof. And if there was a break in the chain, it would take hard work to get back on track.
The company’s customer service model absorbed most of this burden. It provided customers peace of mind, even if they were jilted by a shipping mishap or similar malady. And over time, this commitment helped garner consumer trust.
The Zappos model no longer exists. Amazon acquired the company years ago and did away with the customer service hotline.
They weren’t alone.
Relatively few companies offer any form of live support these days. Even finding an online contact form can prove tricky. I learned this the hard way when I tried to track down my missing delivery item.
This is a problem. A major problem.
It’s bad enough for businesses to gaslight the populace, claiming all is well when the house is actually on fire. But to take consumer money without delivering the goods — that’s a rupture in a fundamental promise.
A break in the chain is no excuse for businesses to get off Scot free. Promises must be kept.
Refusing such obligations is illegal. Deflecting them is immoral. Throwing gauntlets ahead of them is unethical.
These tactics need to end. Immediately.
The Zappos model of the early 2000s may be gone. But it shouldn’t be forgotten.
Customer service matters. Now more than ever.
Our world is filled with electronic data. Information stored in encoded bits and bytes.
And most of these data – the trillions of exabytes of information – reside in the cloud.
The cloud is essentially a logistics system. A network of data servers that can send information though a wireless connection.
There are many advantages to this model – including the function of redundancies.
Yes, the cloud can store copies of our data in multiple locations. That way, if something happens to one physical server – a power outage or a natural disaster, for instance – our data doesn’t go down with the ship. It’s still available to us.
Redundancies are, by nature, inefficient. And embedding them into a system that streamlines data storage might seem contradictory at first.
But their inclusion underscores a golden rule of systems management: When there is a break in the chain, efficiency descends in priority.
Yes, the data redundancy feature is an insurance policy of sorts. A preemptive, productive response to a break in the chain. It’s a feature, not a bug.
It’s high time for the rest of our systems to adopt this thinking.
No chain is foolproof. Nothing just works.
We need better answers for the worst-case scenarios. Let’s find them, and let’s deploy them.
Sooner, not later.