I really cannot decide, either it is a stroke of genius that
is beyond my comprehension, something a machine speaking its own language has
decided (2) (and hence humans will be trained accordingly) or simply a very bad
example of application of “data science”.
Let me first give some background. Supermarkets are
basically landlords who try to maximise the yield they can get on their space.
Hence what they put on the shelves, where the put their shelves, what they keep
in stock, when and how they replenish stocks, what items they have promotions
on are all very valid questions where the use of analytics and “data science”
can be very helpful.
I am sure you would have noticed that supermarkets in
different areas of town carry different stuff, this is usually based on what
their customers buy and are likely to buy. For example, supermarkets in upper
market parts of town tend to carry more premium brands (“King Oscar” rather
than “Ayam Brand” sardines, “Bob’s Red Mill Flour” rather than “Bake King”
flour).
Where you put the different shelves also matters; for
example, you can optimise the route customers take through the supermarket
based on the common baskets purchased, and creatively put high profit alternative
brands along the most common path.
Also, you must ensure that the stocks keep moving; and that
doesn’t apply just to perishables. Hence anticipating when you are likely to
run out of stocks of particular items and getting them replenished just-in-time
can save you a lot in terms of premium space cost as well as minimising lost
opportunity.
Another related question is where to place the promotion
items. I am sure you have noticed many of these are neat the cashiers. This is
premium space. So are the shelves next to the cashiers that cater to impulse
buys; you see sweets, chocolates there, not rice or milk. One step further goes
to pricing the promotional items, you might decide to take a hit on one item,
knowing that most people will also purchase another item where you more than
make up for the discount.
Please don’t say “diapers and beer”! A friend of mine who
has intimate knowledge of the project where this idea originated gets very
angry and declares this a myth that nobody has the incentive to debunk. Anyway,
the fact is some products sell together, and placing them strategically is a
good way to increase sales.
Take a look at this beauty:
This is a picture from an NTUC Fair Price I visited over the
weekend. Let me list the collection of goods in this picture:
o
Red wine
o
Tomato Ketchup
o
Chocolate
o
Hair Colouring
o
Toothpaste (whitening and for sensitive teeth)
o
Facial Tissue
o
Titanium Kitchen Scissors
o
Cooking Oil
o
Children’s Milk
o
Instant Noodles
o
Chicken Essence (a common energy/health drink)
I have no clue what MacGyver would make of all this, to me
either this is the mess that lies between your kitchen and your toilet, or a vain
survivalist’s dream. But since there are well stocked bomb shelters all around
Singapore, I am not sure this NTUC Fair Price is catering to vain survivalists.
Hence, to the “data scientist” who came up with this
planogram, please check what language your AI is speaking. Actually it’s
probably laughing.
My rant doesn’t end there...
It came time to pay.
In another amazing attempt at increasing efficiency, the
supermarket decided to allocate their space to 1 human manned counter, and 5
or 6 self-serve counters.
One of the interesting things about the self-serve area of
NTUC Fair Price is that the baskets need to be placed on a weighing platform (a
basket just about fits on the platform); hence people who are using trolleys,
unless their trolleys are only carrying a basket worth of goods have to go the
human way.
The human manned queue was loaded with people pushing well
packed trolleys. Basket people were therefore moving to the self-serve. So far
so good you’d say. (Not for me, I don’t enjoy corporations pushing work down to
me the customer while they increase their profits, and for other reasons (3),
but I won’t go there now).
When it becomes fun is when the other interesting thing
about the weighing at NTUC Fair Price is that there are 2 scales: one where you
put your basket of purchases before you pay, one where you place your purchases
(without basket) as you scan them. Your scanning is accepted when the weight
that leaves one scale is equal to the weight that is added to the other (I don’t
know the tolerance level).
This becomes really fun when you have purchased many items.
While you can stack items taking advantage of the sides of a basket, on a flat
platform this collapses. Anything that decreases the weight due to falling off
the scale for example triggers and alarm and you have to wait for a human to
intervene, you can also cancel and restart.
It’s even more fun when you purchase light items, such as a toothbrush.
The alarm will ring likely because the weight of the toothbrush is within the sensitivity
range, and the system cannot decide whether the item has left one scale and
ended up on the other; hence human intervention is required.
What was the outcome of all this application of technology?
Well... The 1 human cashier was very busy dealing with the
long queue of trolleys (4). The human helper of the self-serve robots was the busiest
bee, buzzing from alarm to alarm. The human customers at the trolley queue had
to wait longer since there were so few cashiers able to serve them.
The customers
at the self serve have to wait longer since the alarm kept ringing and ringing.
In sum the cost to employees and customers went up.
But eventually, I guess the data will show that the NTUC
fair price had brisk sales, a large portion of the customers went through
self-serve – they were incompetent hence causing the alarm to ring, but that
doesn’t change anything. Someone’s KPI has been hit. This is even more true if
the NTUC Fair Price employees have not been compensated for the increase in
their workloads.
Furthermore, if people have bought oil, or hair colouring,
or red wine, then may be the record will show that the planogram worked.
I can hear the machine laughing while it trains us... (If it
was autonomous enough it would probably be rolling on the floor laughing)
Not me; I am not going to that NTUC Fair Price again (5).
(1)
You could argue there was no “data science”
involved; but then again I’d ask what the NTUC “data scientists” up to then, or
whether NTUC Fair Price has a policy of wasting shelf space? or may be they are just testing our reactions... ? https://www.wired.com/story/virginia-self-driving-car-seat-disguise-van/
(4)
Actually it was a single basket queue, so
customers were actually expected to put baskets in their trolleys and pay
basket by basket at the self-serve, or break the rules that NTUC itself
imposed, if the cashier allowed. Fortunately, the human cashier showed common
sense and allowed trolleys at her queue; with a single basket, I understood her
situation. Human accommodates, what’s new?
(5)
To add insult to injury, the supermarket was
very tight, the queues spilling over beyond the minute queuing space, and
someone in wheelchair was much inconvenienced.
