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.

To fully comprehend this, consider the following facts:

- The lab is currently extremely quiet. We have had virtually no work to 
do for months, and there is no end in sight. (At this time of the year, 
clients want to finish existing projects, and avoid starting new ones 
until the next calendar year.)

- Even at peak capacity usage, 16 L would last us quite a long time.

- The UK chemicals supplier claims the problem is local to the USA and 
they actually have plenty of stock available.

I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks' 
worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote

> 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.

That's a perfectly rational and expected behaviour.

> I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks'
> worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P

It's called planning. If you have the means to carry it out (ie you have
storage and funds), it makes perfect sense. Everybody else will be doing
that, which will worsen the shortage, so one would be a fool not to
(somewhat related to prisoner's dilemma and related topics, which I suggest
you read).

Don't assume that anything the management does is stupid.

Post a reply to this message

>> I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks'
>> worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P
> 
> It's called planning.

No, it's called panicing.

> If you have the means to carry it out, it makes perfect sense.

No, obtaining what you *actually* need makes perfect sense. Obtaining 
far more product than you can possibly use does not make any sense at all.

> Everybody else will be doing
> that, which will worsen the shortage, so one would be a fool not to

Or rather, one would be a fool to follow the crowd and create a crisis 
which doesn't need to exist in the first place.

Post a reply to this message

"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
news:4901e58f$1@news.povray.org...

> >> I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks'
> >> worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P

> > It's called planning.

> No, it's called panicing.

Distinction without differentiation, in this case.

> > If you have the means to carry it out, it makes perfect sense.

> No, obtaining what you *actually* need makes perfect sense. Obtaining
> far more product than you can possibly use does not make any sense at all.

You'll use 8 weeks worth of petrol, well, in 8 weeks, by definition. It's
certainly not something you won't use. Even in the unlikely case that you
completely switch to cycling and don't ever use it, it's not something that
will ever devalue substantially. You can always sell it.

> > Everybody else will be doing
> > that, which will worsen the shortage, so one would be a fool not to

> Or rather, one would be a fool to follow the crowd and create a crisis

Yes.

> which doesn't need to exist in the first place.

But see, the crisis *needs* to exist. The crisis may not have existed if
everyone acted irrationally, but if most act rationally, the crisis needs to
exist. When you say something "need" or "not need" be, the baseline
assumptions should be the natural ones. It's not human nature to be grossly
irrational/apathetic or overly altruistic, so the natural tendency is
towards hoarding. In this sense, the crisis is necessary, much as a knee
jerk is necessary after tapping the knee. You may pretend it is neither
necessary nor needed, but that won't make it not happen.

If you singly cannot change the outcome (which you cannot in the cases
presented), make sure to exercise damage control.

Of course, if you have excessive petrol reserves, it makes sense to sell it
during a crisis at inflated prices. Rather than damage control, you are then
grabbing an opportunity due to your differing circumstances.

Post a reply to this message

somebody wrote:
> it's not something that
> will ever devalue substantially. You can always sell it.

Well, technically, gasoline goes bad after a few months, unless you put 
extra preservatives in it.  Just so's ya know. :-)

Don't expect to run the lawn mower this year on last year's gasoline.

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

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 24 Oct 2008 11:51:57 -0600, "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> wrote:

>"Invisible" <voi### [at] devnull> wrote in message
>news:4901e58f$1@news.povray.org...
>
>> >> I bet this guy is also one of the people who immediately buys 8 weeks'
>> >> worth of petrol as soon as a tanker strike is announced too. :-P
>
>> > It's called planning.
>
>> No, it's called panicing.
>
>Distinction without differentiation, in this case.

It depends on the outcome. If it turns out that there is a real shortage then
its planning if not then it's panic.
In Andrew's workplace I would hazard that it is panic.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

"Darren New" <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote in message
news:490211ef$1@news.povray.org...
> somebody wrote:

> > it's not something that
> > will ever devalue substantially. You can always sell it.

> Well, technically, gasoline goes bad after a few months, unless you put
> extra preservatives in it.  Just so's ya know. :-)

True. I'm assuming if you want to store it for months, you'd use
antioxidants/stabilizers and avoid exposure to air.

Post a reply to this message

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