I had an interesting encounter at the Kendall Square Au Bon Pain yesterday morning. Not a bad customer experience, but something I noticed in the checkout process that might be worth discussing.
I had a bagel sandwich (wasbai salmon on multi-grain bagel) and brought the sandwich, with the order ticket, to the register.
The cashier started to ring it up and apparently made an error — she rang it up as a bagel, plain bagel. The cost for that is about $1.06 where the bagel sandwich must be about $4.
She sort of muttered and said, “Oh, I don’t want to do a void out, so here you go.” To set context, it wasn’t really THAT crowded where an angry mob would have formed (there were multiple register stations feeding from a single queue).
Here was a classic opportunity, in a Toyota or Lean sense, for her to “pull the andon cord.” She had a problem — misrang customer order. It was EASIER, apparently, for her to just give me the sandwich, losing $3 in company revenue.
If the tradeoff was “$3 isn’t worth it, let’s keep the customers moving,” then maybe that’s an OK decision. But is that decision approved as “standardized work?” Does she have the judgment to make that decision?
Or, was the whole thing a workaround?? I’m sure voiding the order requires a manager override (a theft-prevention measure, I’m sure) and that either takes too much time or it gets them a reprimand for making the error?
Wouldn’t it be the case, if Toyota ran this, that she would have a “help” button (an andon cord of sorts), where the team leader would be there immediately to resolve the problem right then and without any bad attitude? Then, maybe they would do some training or root cause problem solving to reduce her error rate in ringing up orders? Or maybe there’s a problem with the register?
I’m sure the reaction at Au Bon Pain was to just move on and never think about that transaction again. Typical of most organizations?
About LeanBlog.org: Mark Graban is a consultant, author, and speaker in the “lean healthcare” methodology, focused on improving quality and patient safety, improving access, reducing costs, and fully engaging healthcare professionals. He is also the Chief Improvement Officer for KaiNexus.
LeanBlog on Facebook
Add Mark on Google+
"Move to Healthcare" Network
Lean Blog YouTube Channel
RSS
Newsletter
Twitter
Facebook
Google+
LinkedIn
YouTube
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
On Twitter:
@asplake @leanblog perhaps they were happy to "waste" $3 on winning a loyal customer?
My impression was that she was motivated by not having to deal with the hassle of doing the void, it didn't seem real focused on "oh this will make the customer happy" even as a side effect.
My impression.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Mark- Fun example. What if there was a way to better poke yoke the process though automation. Possibly a void button with a reason code or a handheld device for the supervisor to override remotely. Sounds like an Ishikawa diagram in that making leading to some good standard work.
On a personal note, I worked for ABP about 15 years ago while in college. I'd hope that the systems have improved but I recall that an associated required a supervisor with a key to create a void action. The shop was at Pittsburgh International Airport and customer demand was based on flight arrival times which all seemed to occur at the same time. Just picture very long lines. The supervisor would shift between different stations to help where needed but difficult to secure this person for a void.
-Jason-
twitter.com/jwsems
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Another question — what value does the supervisor bring to the void process?
I also remember a recent experience at Lowes where a manager had to trudge over and just hit some code.
Would that have really prevented fraud? Hard to see.
If the point is fraud detection, couldn't a daily/shift report of # of overrides and $ value of overrides give that information?
From what I saw, the supervisor involvement at Lowes only slowed the process down.
Reminds of me of manager approvals that some hospitals get rid of in the name of Lean. If a manager signs off on something 100% of the time, why require the sign off?
Do the Lowes or ABP supervisors ever NOT approve an override?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
"Would that have really prevented fraud? Hard to see.
If the point is fraud detection, couldn't a daily/shift report of # of overrides and $ value of overrides give that information?"
******************
While I agree in principle, it's hard to ignore the fact that retailers lose billions each year due to fraud and mistakes at the POS. Workers who are determined to steal or help others steal (as part of an organized crime group) learn to work around the system very quickly. Thus, to play it safe, many retailers simply require a supervisor's intervention for voids/returns.
That said, I agree that standardized work and training help mitigate the occurence of mistakes by honest workers, and more efficient POS systems help speed up the checkout process while preventing malicious intent to steal. In some cases, good retailers and fast food chains have managers/supervisors that closely monitor the checkout area and quickly respond to any void/return situation that may delay the customer and those waiting behind her. Running across the store, as in your example, is not a good practice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hi. In TPS the operator has the right to scrap an item; throw it into a big red box (5 years ago). Modern day is to place it in full view on its own single-piece cart. Either way the scraps are added up at the end of the shift and posted on the BIG visual control board where the opeators can also place notes/ reasons and PDCA (countermeasures to achieve the target). I.e. continuous people engagement is embedded into Visual Management.
Mike Davis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0