Facepalms all around. Supply chains are hard, and the idea that you can just write software to "solve" them is a level of hubris that defies description. Supply chains aren't a problem you can solve with big data. They aren't a problem that be solved with machine learning. In fact, you could combine the worlds top researchers in Computer Science, Economics, Operations Research, Mathematics, and Statistics, put them in a room together for a decade, and still not "solve" even 1% of the problems that Supply Chains face. I know the ITA presentation on Air Travel Planning Complexity[1] has been circulated here many times, but it always blows peoples minds how complex that problem space is, and that type of problem is miniscule in comparison to end to end supply chain optimization. I work in a problem space that is the combination of 9 different NP-Complete/Hard problem spaces (I've counted) on a regular basis...we are barely scraping by with millions of lines of code and entire data centers of our servers running at peak utilization 24/7, and that is with state of the art heuristics solvers and hundreds of PhD-level researchers, and that is only a subset of the Supply Chain problems that my company faces. To say that Good Eggs bit off more than they can chew is a MASSIVE understatement.
Supply Chain Management is a field that is heuristic-driven because there isn't a solution. The heuristics that drive modern food distribution are the result of a real world genetic algorithm that is already thousands of generations deep...and miniscule incremental improvements have been the subject of PhD Theses for over a hundred years now. You don't optimize on top of that by writing a web service. Supply Chain Management may not be technologically advanced in its usage of enterprise software, but that doesn't mean that their ideas and processes are stupid. At best, it means there are some annoying frictions in the industry in the way that they interact with other industries (and there are actually plenty of viable startup opportunities to fix this). The presumption of stupidity[2] regarding the existing state of logistics and supply chain management killed this company, just like how it killed Webvan, and is going to kill a whole host of startups in the distribution and delivery space within the next few years. [3]
[3] PS: If you are in VC and have a stake in any startup that is doing last mile delivery, liquidate now. There isn't a single startup in the space, whether they are currently valued at $1 or $1B, that can sustainably provide their existing value proposition that they are promising to their customers. It is possible to force scale some of them into something sustainable, but your valuations make me believe your cash flow neutrality projections are off by more than an order of magnitude.
Not to mention that food itself does not elicit rational behavior. If we were remotely logical about how we consume food, we'd all be voluntarily eating a nutrition paste out of a tube every morning.
Eating food is an animal need, and therefore we have instinctual animal behaviors around supplying it and consuming it that just can't fit into any sort of rational mental model. There are functions around food behavior built into our DNA and we haven't had enough generations since the invention of agriculture to evolve beyond them yet. Heck, I'd even guess we would all benefit if food supply chains were more decentralized and chaotic than they are already.
This irrationality is unfortunately a difficult thing for engineering-minded people to accept, so it makes sense that the valley would just keep on making these same mistakes with every generation. So it goes
Are you suggesting human dietary behaviors have not changed since the inception of agriculture thousands of years ago? Because they have, and that clearly demonstrates that how and what people eat is driven by complex cultural processes. But the only source of behavior you identify is in-born and determined by genetics.
Our genetics have been influenced by agriculture, already. I don't know what it means to 'move beyond' behavior. Humans are very good at changing their behavior at time scales far, far shorter than any evolutionary time scale. Even for behaviors that one would consider particularly basic, like sex or... eating behavior.
All I see is an assertion that some behavior is 'logical', actual human behavior is 'irrational', and the reason why humans are acting so irrational is because its ingrained in their DNA. The allegedly logical argument for eating Soylent is left unexplained. I doubt there is one. I doubt modern humans could yet design a single nutrition product that outcompetes a diverse diet in all benefits. I think you just use the word logical to designate things as good, and irrational to designate things as bad.
Instead of actually considering why people eat the way they do, you're not saying anything at all except that you think it's dumb. It's a very boring point to make and it looks flimsy and downright silly when your justification is Argumentum Ad DNA.
Boring, boring, boring, and unfortunately incredibly prolific on the Internet.
You seem to be incredibly smart and well educated and would do the world a great service if you worked to shift your energy towards compassionately sharing in knowledge exchange rather than venting anger at why others don't have the same knowledge you do.
I want to open this up again and give you free reign here to explain to me why my thoughts are incorrect, but with the condition that it's done without attacking the structure of my words or me personally.
I have two theories about neuroscience, but I have no formal education in science and my knowledge comes from the university of HN, wikipedia and google. I want to know why I'm wrong about these theories and become educated on the reasons why they are wrong. If you can help me, I would be very thankful.
The first theory is that grocery stores and home cooking are our last proxy for primitive food scavenging behavior (I believe this is called dopamine reward seeking). This is why Soylent will never be successful and why online food shopping will always be a niche business.
Second - I've never been sold on the idea that our brain ships without any software preinstalled. It's hard to debate in favor of this since the science is murky and, of course, I'm no scientist. The only thing I can point to is this http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/1048647...
If you can help explain to me why I'm mistaken with these thoughts, you'd make a positive impact on my life and hopefully improve your own outlook as well.
Or you can tell me to fuck off. But know that I did give a shit about what you had to say and it's stuck with me for almost 24hrs now.
No worries. Honestly don't sweat responding to my comment, there are some very silly reasons why I'm interested in the topic in the first place.
I wish there was a better medium to read your work than HN comment history. If you don't already write professionally I hope you are pursuing it. You're very talented and thorough. I want to read more of what you have to say.
But a parting word of advice - that writing talent of yours makes your criticism feel like the intellectual equivalent of being punched by the incredible hulk. If you're pursuing ambitions in technology, anyone on HN could either be a valuable asset or a particularly shitty enemy. Best not to risk crushing the wrong person
It might be a while, I got even more busy with life than when I initially commented to you. Do you have an account at a place with direct messaging? I can send you my thoughts there.
The truth is, it's very easy to talk the way I did, and very hard to talk in a constructive way.
Thanks for the very interesting post. What sort of companies are providing the supply chain / logistics management/optimization consulting services that you mention (or is it mostly done in-house?)? Are any focusing on serving Asia?
I wonder if there's a good startup opportunity in this industry in Asia; many firms possibly haven't figured out the application of mathematics/ops-research to their supply chains yet, at least compared to the level of top US firms.
Logistics (delivery) startups are burgeoning in Asia, but no doubt will face these issues soon - maybe specialized mathematical expertise will help.
Supply Chain Management is a field that is heuristic-driven because there isn't a solution. The heuristics that drive modern food distribution are the result of a real world genetic algorithm that is already thousands of generations deep...and miniscule incremental improvements have been the subject of PhD Theses for over a hundred years now. You don't optimize on top of that by writing a web service. Supply Chain Management may not be technologically advanced in its usage of enterprise software, but that doesn't mean that their ideas and processes are stupid. At best, it means there are some annoying frictions in the industry in the way that they interact with other industries (and there are actually plenty of viable startup opportunities to fix this). The presumption of stupidity[2] regarding the existing state of logistics and supply chain management killed this company, just like how it killed Webvan, and is going to kill a whole host of startups in the distribution and delivery space within the next few years. [3]
[1] https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.itasoftware.c...
[2] http://www.aaronkharris.com/presumption-of-stupitidy
[3] PS: If you are in VC and have a stake in any startup that is doing last mile delivery, liquidate now. There isn't a single startup in the space, whether they are currently valued at $1 or $1B, that can sustainably provide their existing value proposition that they are promising to their customers. It is possible to force scale some of them into something sustainable, but your valuations make me believe your cash flow neutrality projections are off by more than an order of magnitude.