Halloween: In Memoriam

My life changed on Halloween last year.  I didn’t know it then; I thought it was a phase that I’d shrug off, a period of mourning that would heal with time.  It healed some, but seems it nevertheless changed me for good. 

One year ago I got the horrific news that a family member had been struck by a vehicle and killed instantly.  She had been walking down the road holding hands with her loving husband.  They had just moved to Florida together to start their dream retirement.  All I could think of was how full of life she had been, one of the most joyful people I knew, and how detrimental it would be to poor Jim, her husband who had to pick up the pieces of their life that she left too soon.  

I’d known people who had died before.  I’ve lost grandparents to those things that take you in old age.  I’ve known families who have lost babies within days or months of giving birth.  I’ve seen teenagers get in with the wrong crowds and lose their lives.  I’ve had classmates who died in war.  But no death has shaken me like Joyce’s.  Perhaps it’s the juxtaposition of her being so full of life and love, and then such sudden death.  Perhaps it struck close to home - I go for walks, and I drive, and she had no influence on the outcome.  

I can’t put my finger on it, but there’s something more to her death.  It’s a tragedy, but not just a tragedy.  It’s horrible irony, but not just a shame.  It’s as if her death was supposed to have meaning to me, a purpose, and so fate made it so.  

Ever since Halloween last year, I’ve had an uncanny notion of Joyce watching over me when I drive, shunning me when I steal a glance at my phone, and praising me when I avoid a pedestrian who didn’t hear or see me coming.  Joyce’s story has made my passion for autonomous vehicles not just selfishly indulgent, but imperative for mankind.  And she made it personal.  It’s no longer about the “cool” factor of the technology.  Joyce is to human drivers as Hiroshima’s Peace Park is to the atomic bomb – a vivid memorial that begs modern society to do away with such destructive forces.  

We don’t know what caused the driver to veer suddenly to the side of the road, but I think it’s fair to assume that the driver was distracted, whether it be by a cell phone or otherwise.  I’ve been in a collision because the driver behind me was fidgeting with his radio, something that we don’t villanize as we do texting or drunk driving.  

What I’ve come to learn in my research is that there are far too many variables when it comes to driving behavior.  No one product or activity can ever make a driver completely dangerous or completely safe.  I’ve texted while driving in order to stay awake.  I rationalized that an alert but distracted driver is safer than a driver whose eyes aren’t even open.  Drivers who have had a couple drinks are often safer drivers than those who have had no alcohol at all – slightly inebriated drivers are aware of the risk of getting caught and therefore behave better.  

Thus, I’m not going to crusade against any one behavior – texting, drinking, applying makeup, aggressive driving – because none of these are inherently more or less dangerous than any others.  Instead, I’m crusading against the one aspect that puts us in danger at all, and that’s putting human beings behind the wheel.  We are far too comfortable with driving, far too distracted by life, and far too bad at it (statistically, you are worse than you think).  We need smart vehicles to take over, so that we can spend our time doing being distracted.  

Take the human element out of driving, and you remove the human error that puts us in danger every time we get near a roadway.  Until then, the only thing I can think to do is be the best driver I can be, and I hope that Joyce approves from above. 

Back to the Future: A Sneak Peek at 2045

There is a big difference between following current trajectories into the future to imagine a dismal fate, and believing that the small efforts today can turn those trends around.  Maybe its the hopeful optimist in me, or maybe its my faith in humanity's ability to prevent foreseeable disasters, but I believe 30 years from today will be an awesome time to live.  There are three areas that I'm most anxious to fast-forward to: technology, health and the economy.

Self-driving cars will be practically mandated; it won't contravene hard law to drive oneself, but it will be rendered completely impractical and economically challenging because insurance rates will skyrocket for non-autonomous vehicles.  A new industry will arise around furnishing and "pimping" your self-driving car, free from the restrictions of forward-facing seats and the tethers of strict safety features.  Cars will morph into lounges of productivity, comfort and service, while zooming along safer roads than ever seen in the history of the car. 

Programming will be taught in schools instead of cursive.  Some will excel at it and become programmers, but most people will know basic computer languages. 

3D printing as a technology will mature into a mass production tool for specific applications, such as wearable technologies, on-the-go sound equipment and hot-off-the-printer food delivery services.  Most middle-class people will have some sort of 3D scanner at home, with many also having a 3D printer for specific housekeeping requirements. 

Speaking of housekeeping, robots will be employed in most homes to do the mundane work - washing and putting away dishes and clothes, taking out the garbage and recycling, vacuuming and cleaning surfaces. 

Wearables will be as pervasive as cellphones are today, and will become more invasive as we get accustomed to the Internet of Things.  These technologies will drive the turnaround of the obesity epidemic, bringing diabetes, asthma, IBS, heart disease, allergies and even cancer to their knees.  Your device will inform you that you are low on a specific nutrient and will select recommendations from your list of favorite foods as well as new dishes to try at local restaurants to satisfy your dietary requirements.  Restaurants will have no choice but to offer tasty, healthful options to win and retain customers.  Your device will also walk you through your grocery store identifying products that you may enjoy based on your tastes and dietary needs, avoiding those that you have a habit of over-indulging on.  Health and weight loss will no longer be a pressing matter, as it will be so effortless to stay healthy that obesity will seem like a frivolous concept, and all the diseases that are correlated with poor dieting will seem foreign. 

The economy will accelerate like never before, primarily because we will have long since done away with partisan politics and replaced the political system with an issues-based and performance-driven model. Flourishing in this economy is as simple as getting paid fairly for what you excel at, enjoy doing or what you are learning.  The increased transparency of skills, qualifications and talent compared to relative salaries in every field will make it nearly impossible to be under- or over-paid.  There will be more part-time and flex-time jobs and the development of hybrid jobs - where you spend part of your time in one function, and the rest of your time on another function - to best make use of the skills and value each person brings to an organization.  With job satisfaction and productivity up, and economic uncertainty diminished, the finance will be a no-brainer.  The work week will be shorter, providing us more time to exercise and participate in activities that keep us healthy. 

These are the things that I see as inevitable, if not a slightly optimistic or accelerated view of 30 years from today.  The future is ours to invent, and if we don't invent it, someone else will.  Deciding what aspect of the future to be a part of making is an ongoing challenge for me, but its the right way to think for any company or individual wanting to be around and see these things come to fruition in 30 years. 

Pizza Delivery Supply Chain Improvement: The World's First Culinary 3PL

Don't ask me what made me think of this, I really don't know.  But somewhere between reducing capacity concerns at a liquid hand soap co-packer and refilling my cup of water, I got the whiff of a ridiculous idea for fast pizza delivery - or maybe it was the pizza being pushed by me as I made my way back from the water cooler.  Whatever it was, I think I'm on to something, or at least, its amusing to think about.

First, some background for non-supply-chain people.  The products you buy in stores are considered make-to-stock products.  Make-to-stock supply chain models are best suited for products that are low in value, like commodity items, have long shelf lives and have long lead times on the raw materials or manufacturing processes (or both).  Products that are high in value, like fancy computers and cars, are often make-to-order rather than make-to-stock.  Products with very short lead times and short shelf lives, like pizza or sandwiches, are generally make-to-order as well.  Make-to-stock supply chains require demand forecasting (and forecasts are almost never correct, they can be too high or too low), production planning (which either makes too much or too little, depending on the forecast and lot size factors), and materials planning which can wreck havoc on an otherwise perfectly planned production plan if the materials are not available.  When too much is produced and not sold, it becomes inventory which carries a cost.  When too little is produced, customers get upset and service levels tank.  It is easy to see why supply chain folks love make-to-order, because there is much less risk involved; you generally get payment up front, you have firm orders from real customers instead of forecasts, and all you have to do is produce it.  

Manufacturing companies also have a lot of logistics problems to work through on both sides of their operations: getting the raw materials or components needed to make what they make, and getting their finished products out the customers.  That is where 3PLs often come in.  3PL stands for third party logistics provider, and they are a unique kind of company that specializes in those logistical nightmares that manufacturing companies tend to struggle with.  My own experience with 3PLs has proven gains in efficiency, inventory accuracy, and service to our production lines and to our customers.  

So now that we have our basics, let's get back to my blasphemous or radically innovative idea I came to write about.  I started wondering what would happen if there was a 3PL managing pizza delivery.  On the one hand, sales forecasts are more accurate the more aggregated they are, so by removing the luxury of large warehouses, a 3PL might seem impractical.  On the other hand, lean methodologies tell us that a lot size of as low as 1 can still be efficient if the processes around it support lean principles.  

Let's imagine a densely populated neighborhood which orders on average 25 pizzas for dinner per night:  6 cheese pizzas, 13 pepperoni pizzas, 4 sausage pizzas and 2 special order pizzas.  Let's say the standard deviation is 1 pizza in each category except pepperoni, where the standard deviation is 3 pizzas.  The orders are placed between the hours of 5:30 pm and 8 pm and are normally distributed.  Would it be possible to set up a micro-delivery station in that neighborhood and other neighborhoods like it, where the pizzas could be made based on a forecasting system and delivered within minutes of the order, without losing too much freshness?  Imagine Jimmy John's delivery speed applied to pizza - if quality and freshness were comparable, it would blow away the pizza delivery market!  

It wouldn't be that hard, assuming, of course, that the demand is steady enough to warrant such a setup and and high enough to be profitable.  Some pizzas would be discarded at the end of each night (taken home by the delivery boys as a bonus), and special orders would still take a little bit longer.  But even special orders could be semi-baked the time the order comes in; if the order is for a pepperoni and sausage pizza, just throw some sausage on a semi-baked pepperoni pizza, right? In fact, I could imagine these little micro-franchises could be run by a person living in the neighborhood, and the pizza could be delivered by bike rather than car.  A teenager could do it after school, or a stay-at-home mom could run the dinner business when her husband comes home.  The possibilities are pretty neat when you make it so tiny anyone can do it.  And if there's no separate facility, there's no overhead.  Just materials (cardboard boxes) and ingredients, which pay for themselves when the customers pay for their pizza.  The only upfront cost would be a commercial oven, assuming that the conventional ovens at home are not large enough to support even this kind of demand.

I have another twist, too.  I believe the very near future will include self-driving, autonomous vehicles in the marketplace.  Now, pizza delivery boys are not known to drive the nicest of cars, but let's imagine if the company provided the vehicles in order to support their business model.  With an autonomous delivery vehicle, an oven a mini-kitchen can be installed, and the delivery boy can be your cook as well.  He literally would let the vehicle drive him around as orders pop up (there would have to be some algorithm to deploy delivery boys based on location and availability, not unlike a taxi service today) and he would prepare the pizza on the way there.  When it finishes cooking, he boxes it up and brings it to your doorstep.  Now THAT'S fresh pizza!

So, until we have self-driving cars with pizza ovens in them (and the legislation to allow autonomous cars to be driven without the driver being attentive), I suppose the only issue is whether or not a neighborhood or small geographic area could have the volume and reliability of demand to support such a business.  Validating it prior to opening up shop could be difficult, as there are a lot of different pizza delivery companies, who are not likely to share their data with you.  I suppose you could set up cameras and watch for pizzas to be delivered; the good news is that its pretty obvious how many pizzas are being delivered visually.  In addition, the value proposition of impossibly quick pizza delivery is different than regular pizza deliveries.  In fact, it could increase demand for pizza delivery.  Borrowing a model I've heard for other startups, one way to validate it would be to set up a website to take orders, and when the orders come in, apologize to your would-be customers for not being able to deliver, and offer them a chance to sign up to find out when you actually are open.  This seems like it could turn people off though, and I would be afraid of the damage it would do.  Unless, of course, you did it in a different but similar geographic region then the one you plan to actually open up shop in.  Alternatively, coupons for future purchases might alleviate some of the "burned" feeling of your customers.  

 

Perhaps a good way to start is by making a few pizzas tonight and open up a preliminary shop (not yet equipped with commercial ovens), but limit the ordering process on the website to only take the first few orders with the 5 minute delivery time, and the rest to promise a more reasonable delivery time.  You'll know pretty quickly what your demand looks like.  You could even get friends and family who live nearby to pitch in their help for the first few opening nights in order to keep as many 5-minute delivery times as possible.  

 

That's about as far as I got.  I'm not all that interested in being in food service myself, but I think its an interesting proposition for someone looking to start perhaps the world's first culinary 3PL.  Anyone hungry yet?

 

 

 

 

 

Braking Bad: How to Reduce Car Accidents Quickly and Cheaply

I have a solution that local governments and their residents can start implementing immediately that will greatly reduce accidents. It's simple, and will financially benefit the cities who use it. Ticket or tax every car owner with a broken or missing middle break light. 

I recently started at a new company and so I'm getting used to a completely new commute. On my new morning drive, there is a lot of stop and go traffic, despite it being 99% freeway. Every lane slows and speeds up at different intervals, at different rates, at different times. Many vehicles are taller than mine and/or have shaded windows, preventing me from being able to see two cars ahead. Thus, I am relying a lot on the brake lights of just a single vehicle. Since the sun was still rising, it was difficult to tell if the left and right lights were lit up for braking or just because the headlights were on. That middle brake light was the only reliable indicator of braking. And here's the problem: THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY VEHICLES WITH BROKEN OR MISSING MIDDLE BRAKE LIGHTS.

Can you tell the difference?

Without that clear indicator, at that time of day, it is very easy to mistake brake lights for running lights. But that's a costly mistake: reaction time is often the difference between crashing and avoiding a crash. And of course, accidents often cause rubber necking and additional congestion, which leads to more accidents. Any reduction in the initial collisions will have a snowballing effect of reducing additional accidents. 

 

So my proposal is to simply ticket/tax and charge the owners (defined by who registered the vehicles) with broken or missing middle brake lights. There are many ways to implement this simple idea, but the primary goal is to get those cars off the road or get the middle brake lights installed or fixed. Cars can be examined at the same time as emissions, for example. At that point, registration is either denied or an expensive fee is assessed. Alternatively, police can focus, even for a short period of time, on pulling drivers over and issuing the tickets. Publicizing this focus will be a big deterrent for many drivers not wanting to get pulled over. 

My camera actually caught more light from the brakes than I was actually seeing, so these photos don't even do justice to the true difficulty of seeing the brake lights.

How important is this? I would argue this is equally as important, if not more, than the emphasis on DUIs. Hear me out: its not the drunkenness that kills people, its the fact that drunk drivers have slowed reaction times, poor decision making and/or are not paying attention. But if every other driver and pedestrian was watching out for and able to avoid that drunk driver, than the worst she can do is kill herself. Drunk driving or not, defensive drivers can save you, even if you make a mistake or an illegal maneuver, but only if they can tell what you're doing. The problem with the brake lights is that without that clear indicator, other drivers do not have that information and cannot make adjustments in a timely manner to avoid collision. Also, DUIs by their nature are achieved when people when their decision making is impaired; either they think they're ok to drive or they are willing to take the risk because calling a cab and then finding a way to get their cars back the following day seems like too much of a hassle. Fixing the brake light issue, on the other hand, is a proactive, sober decision that not only prevents future hassles (getting pulled over, dealing with a fender bender), it will save them money if a ticket is prevented, and could save their lives. But the risk of getting ticketed must be present for those arguments to have the effect needed to drive action.

How to police self-driving cars

As you know from a previous post, I am a huge advocate of self-driving or autonomous cars.  In short, they would be exponentially safer than a human driving a car, and would free up time for its human passengers to do other activities.  After the question of safety, which I am not going to debate here, the next question is always around the law: who is accountable should a self-driving car have an accident?  I think the difficulty people are having with answering this question is that it is such a foreign concept to us that we can't wrap our brains around it.  Thus, I was inspired to write this post in order to simplify our thinking and perhaps clear the way for future discussions on this topic.  I'm going to make the case that car manufacturers, or more specifically, the company producing and installing the software into autonomous vehicles, should be held responsible for any accidents caused by vehicles using said software.  

Before you get all defensive on me, hear me out.  If a brand new car, driven off the lot, spontaneously explodes and injures the driver and a person in another car, the car manufacturer is at fault.  I think we can agree on that much.  More broadly, a malfunction of an unmodified vehicle that causes harm to someone (or really, had the potential to harm someone) is a product defect and thus the responsibility falls on the car manufacturer.  Of course, a car owner could void this responsibility by tinkering with the vehicle, in which case the car owner would be responsible if he/she created a defect in an otherwise certified safe car.  If another company did the tinkering that lead to the harm, the vehicle owner would hold that company accountable.  All of this is in practice today, and has been for many years.  

Now, let's apply it to autonomous vehicle features, without going fully self-driving.  New (high end) cars have some of these features already.  Yes, you heard me right: mass-produced cars are already doing some of the thinking for us.  Some drivers are already entrusting their lives into the hands of a car that makes its own decisions; and the rest of us are driving on the same roads as those cars.  The primary example I will focus on is the Volvo that stops itself before impact with a large object.  My brother-in-law was so excited when he test drove the car, bragging about how the salesman encouraged him to drive it directly at a brick wall.  Against all intuition, he successfully approached the brick wall at such a speed as to trigger the car to automatically apply the brakes.  Amazing!  Does this excite you?  Or scare you?  And more importantly, what happens if the car's software has a glitch?  One could imagine how a glitch could trigger the car to randomly apply the brakes on the freeway, causing the car behind it to plow into it.  Who is at fault for the cause of the accident?  Sure, the other driver might get a ticket for driving too close to be unable to stop in time, but I would argue that stopping in the middle of the freeway with no reason could be questioned; and its certainly not the Volvo owner's fault, right?  The test drive showed that no matter what the driver is doing, those brakes are going to be applied if that's what the car has decided to do.  Thus, responsibility must be taken out of the driver's hands.  

 

Now let's take a different angle.  Let's suppose that the Volvo driver is suddenly faced with stopped traffic ahead and an out-of-control runaway semi-truck barreling down a hill at him.  The driver, seeing this, attempts to swerve around the stopped traffic, maybe even attempt to hit the guard rail and plow through it, rather than be squashed between a semi and the car in front of him.  Certainly, if the driver is able to rationally see the guard rail as a favorable collision to being squashed, he should be able to maneuver the car in order to do so, and potentially save his life.  If then the Volvo's autonomous braking feature prevents the driver from driving into the guard rail, and he is instead squashed, would there not be a public outcry and lawsuits against Volvo?  

Parking is another aspect we're seeing early autonomy in.  Some features are just park assist features, like guide lines on the camera.  But some cars are actually controlling and manipulating the steering wheel.  If this doesn't scare the nay-sayers, I don't know what it will take to scare them.  Yet parking is one of the most accident-prone parts of driving, because we are dealing with tighter tolerances.  Tighter tolerances is also a good reason to have the computer take over, too, since computers are more precise and accurate than people are.  Regardless of the rationale, there will still be some damage done by an auto parking car eventually, and I am sure that the car manufacturer will be found at fault for this error that could have been prevented by a human driver.  

I'd be willing to bet that, long before our cars drive themselves completely, we'll see at least one such accident go to court and favor the driver.  That court case is going to be crucial in setting the precedent for future autonomous car accidents.  Car companies installing autonomous features have to be ready for this. 

This, in no way, should deter car manufacturers from adding these features to their cars and moving forward with vehicle autonomy.  Smart features that enhance the safety of a vehicle are going to be primarily selling points.  There will be late adopters who will resist, and that's true of all technologies.  But the majority of the population will gradually become comfortable with these features, and the features will become selling points or requirements in future purchasing decisions.  Instead of car manufacturers shirking away from the technology because of the messy legal fears, they need to embrace the responsibility with the added value that can be derived from the features.  This will serve as motivation to ensure utmost safety of their features - glitch-proof, do-no-harm mentality needs to be instilled, while the return on investment will still be positive.

Still, there will be accidents.  Some will be tragedies that would not have happened had a human driver been in control.  And the nay-sayers will point to them being the beginning of the end.  But my bet is that we will see a vast improvement in safety overall: fewer fatal accidents, fewer pedestrian accidents, fewer accidents causing injuries.  Fewer intentional "accidents", too, by the way, caused by road rage and suicidal / homicidal incidents that go unrecorded for lack of evidence.  All across the board, our roads will get safer and safer as more people drive cars with more and more autonomous features.  Autonomous cars are better for the society as a whole, and will greatly reduce the inherent risk of getting into a vehicle.  Let's not forget how fatal driving can be today - we must never forget that.  The most important thing, when there is an accident caused by an autonomous feature, is to collect all the data we can about that accident and prevent it from happening again.  Pioneers of all sorts are often made into sacrifices and martyrs, and I wish just as much as anyone else that this didn't have to be the case with early adopters of the self-driving car, but I know it is bound to happen.  It will happen, we will settle it in court, and we will move on.  

Why Self Driving Cars Are Coming Sooner Than You Think

No futuristic technology excites me more than the self driving car.  This desire to own one is purely selfish: (1) I hate driving, and I feel it is a waste of my time and energy.  It is also exhausting emotionally when some idiot almost hits me.  (2) It makes me nervous to have others drive me, be it taxi drivers or friends.  (3) I love the flexibility and convenience driving affords me, as opposed to public transportation and alternative modes of transportation.  (4) Being in a car in a populated area is the most dangerous thing most people do in their lifetimes, and most people do it every day.  It doesn't matter that I'm a safe driver; some idiot can hit me when I'm stopped with nowhere to go, and damage my personal property.  Even if its repaired, the car loses value.  Thus, I want all other drivers to own one, too.

So you can have your phablet or your 3D television, all I want for Christmas is an autonomous car.  Hell, I'd even give up my smart phone for a car that drives itself.  Maybe I'm one of the few in the early adopter stage; that wouldn't be a surprise to those who know I own the first Chevy Volt in Arizona.  Maybe I'm just lazy and want to make life even easier on me.  Either way, I want it.  But I won't be so naive to think that everyone will jump at the chance of buying one.  In fact, I don't even think the product life cycle of the self driving car is even worth talking about.  When you question whether or not car makers can make it and car buyers will buy it, I think you're missing a lot of the more important aspects of the discussion.   

The legislation that does exist today - primarily requiring an alert, responsible human driver - is ridiculous.  To that end, if that's the legislation that sticks, we will never get mainstream adoption.  The legislation is indicative of caution exerted around the unknown, which is understandable because we don't really have a solid, viable product in the consumer's hands to base it on yet.  I think what needs to happen is we need to flip it around.  Governments are interested in reducing car accidents and drunk driving.  Why not legislate that new cars have to be equipped with at least partially autonomous features?  The more cars that will avoid hitting things on the road, the less accidents we're likely to see, and the less lethal the remaining accidents should be.  To address the drunk driving issue, breathalzers could be installed and programmed to signal the car to take over the driving when the driver is blowing a high BAC.  Governments should be rallying behind the self-driving car, not putting up barriers.  

We know we can't always rely on government to do the right thing, so let's turn to the commercial world.  Taxis, limo services, shuttles and all sorts of transportation providers should be interested in self-driving cars.  The upfront cost may be astronomical to begin with, and some drivers are paid very poorly.  But there has got to be some length of time where the self-driving car makes economical sense over paying hourly wages, and that payback period will drop with large contracts and larger volumes in production.  

Let's not forget individual consumers who are unable to drive.  This can include the legally blind, the physically handicapped and the elderly.  I'm not saying they're going to shell out a bunch of money themselves, but there are probably grants, charitable support or other funding opportunities to help get them in self-driving cars to empower them to live with more freedom and flexibility.  Disabled military veterans, specifically, have several organizations and grants to support them in civilian life.  Even where there are no available government monies or charities, these kinds of a causes could be crowdfunding-worthy.  

Finally, insurance companies will want their drivers in autonomous cars.  There is huge potential for insurers to give discounts or even potentially subsidize the cost of an autonomous car, knowing their risk is much lower and that the more autonomous cars on the road, the less likely others are to have accidents.  They could give insured drivers the option of replacing their totaled cars with less expensive cars equipped with self-driving capabilities.  

The electric car is great, but it is not a good model to compare future demand for self-driving cars to.  The benefits of the electric car are mostly idealized: reducing dependency on gasoline from overseas, reducing pollution, paying less per mile, not having to go to the gas station.  These points are hard to defend, when it takes sometimes dirty energy to create the electricity, same of creating the car itself, and the cost of the cars make them less than economical.  Cool, yes, but economically sound and environmentally neutral, no.  The self-driving car, on the other hand, has much more tangible benefits.  People who can't drive can use them to reap the benefits of driving, the safety of the autonomous car's passengers and drivers around it is increased, and intoxicated drivers can get home safely without requiring a cab, to name a few.  Thus, the only main stakeholders for the growth of electric cars are the consumers, while the adoption of the autonomous car benefits almost everyone on the road, plus insurers, governments and people who are prevented from driving.  This is the angle that should be taken when discussing the feasibility of self-driving cars in the foreseeable future.