Stephen wrote:

> It depends on the outcome. If it turns out that there is a real shortage then
> its planning if not then it's panic.

No... If you sit down and look at how much we currently have, how much 
we're likely to need in the near future, and base a purchasing decision 
on that - in other words *look at the information* before acting - 
_that_ would be "planning". If you just go "oh, there's a shortage, 
let's try to make it worse" that would be "panicing", regardless of 
whether it turns out to be justified or not.

Planning implies looking at actual information rather than making snap 
decisions based on nothing.

> In Andrew's workplace I would hazard that it is panic.

Uh, yeah. I would hazard a guess that our lab manager has no clue how 
busy we are or how much product we typically use in a month. Hell, he 
apparently doesn't actually know the difference between an autosampler 
and a pump! (Based on a recent conversation with one of our analysts.)

[An autosampler being the robot that transfers sample material from the 
vial to the analytical system, whereas a pump... is... a thing that 
pumps liquid around. Given that an autosampler almost invariably says 
"autosampler" on it somewhere, one has to ask whether the guy can *read* 
either...]

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:49058500$1@news.povray.org...

> > It depends on the outcome. If it turns out that there is a real shortage
then
> > its planning if not then it's panic.

> No... If you sit down and look at how much we currently have, how much
> we're likely to need in the near future, and base a purchasing decision
> on that - in other words *look at the information* before acting -
> _that_ would be "planning".

You miss the point. Everybody else is not going to "look at how much we
currently have, how much we're likely to need in the near future", and it is
the demand that will determine the outcome, so what you mention is
*irrelevant* information. What you really need to look at is how everybody
else behaves under such circumstances, which is the relevant information.
You won't succeed in real life under utopic assumptions while ignoring human
behavioural patterns.

Post a reply to this message

>> No... If you sit down and look at how much we currently have, how much
>> we're likely to need in the near future, and base a purchasing decision
>> on that - in other words *look at the information* before acting -
>> _that_ would be "planning".
> 
> You miss the point. Everybody else is not going to "look at how much we
> currently have, how much we're likely to need in the near future", and it is
> the demand that will determine the outcome, so what you mention is
> *irrelevant* information. What you really need to look at is how everybody
> else behaves under such circumstances, which is the relevant information.
> You won't succeed in real life under utopic assumptions while ignoring human
> behavioural patterns.

No, _you_ miss the point: Why does it matter if our suppliers run out of 
something we don't actually need to purchase right now?

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4905d4f4@news.povray.org...

> No, _you_ miss the point: Why does it matter if our suppliers run out of
> something we don't actually need to purchase right now?

Risk assessment. "Right now" is not the only timeframe people need to
consider, especially those who are responsible for smooth runnings of
operations. If the said manager has the potential to be in hot water
"later", due to the consequences of his inaction today, costing the company
much more than the purchase, his rational decision is to make the purchase,
for both his own as well as the company's sake.

Post a reply to this message

> Risk assessment. "Right now" is not the only timeframe people need to
> consider, especially those who are responsible for smooth runnings of
> operations.

As I said, not only do we not need any more product "right now", but we 
currently have an empty order book, with little or no work in sight 
until at least the new year if not longer. Hardly cause to rush out and 
stock up.

> If the said manager has the potential to be in hot water
> "later", due to the consequences of his inaction today, costing the company
> much more than the purchase, his rational decision is to make the purchase,
> for both his own as well as the company's sake.

If the circumstances were different, I could understand making this 
purchase.

But purchasing vast quantities of something we're not going to use very 
much of for a few months seems... somewhat pointless? (Did I mention the 
item has a limited shelf-life?)

But anyway, you're clearly going to disagree with whatever I say, so 
let's just leave it at that.

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> http://www.bash.org/?742408
> 
> Does this sound like YOUR boss?? Or is it just me?
> 
> 
> 
> The other day we all got an email from HQ saying that there's a global 
> shortage of Acetonitrile. (The most commonly used solvent in our lab.) 
> The email says that we need to carefully plan exactly how much we need 
> and order it well in advance.
> 
> On hearing this, the UK lab manager immediately ordered 16 L of 
> Acetonitrile.
> 

just mentioning that there is a shortage can cause a shortage

Post a reply to this message

Tom Austin wrote:

> just mentioning that there is a shortage can cause a shortage

Provided that enough people hear you and believe you, of course.

I wonder, can the converse be true?

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4905daa3$1@news.povray.org...

> But anyway, you're clearly going to disagree with whatever I say

I agree.

Post a reply to this message

>> But anyway, you're clearly going to disagree with whatever I say
> 
> I agree.

Ah, the infinite irony of the Liar Paradox...

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Invisible wrote:
> that would be "panicing", regardless of 
> whether it turns out to be justified or not.

Technically, I think that would be over-reacting. "Panic" is when you 
don't know what you can do to make the situation better, so you do 
anything, on the grounds that anything might be better than nothing.


Like, you wake up, your house is on fire, flames and smoke everywhere, 
you run outside, and you realize you've taken the alarm clock with you. 
*That* is panic. :-)

-- 
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)

Post a reply to this message