Yesterday, I posted on Facebook a quote that I received twice in the same morning from two different people, and once previously last week. All three people were interested in DataPrizm but wanted to adapt its features for their existing offline workflow. They essentially told me, ‘We want exactly what we have now, but online and DataPrizm can do that.’ I was specifically referencing the earlier call, but the other two thought I was mocking them. Perhaps indirectly, I was, but I did not mean to – so I apologize.
The post and the response from friends and the prospects made me realize that not everyone needs or wants me to fix their process. I further realized this this morning when I had a discussion with the client where I was getting frustrated that they did not want to focus on something they should. It did not seem important to them, and I was struggling to convince them otherwise, despite presenting extensive data, logic, and nearly crayon-like drawings. In the end, I accepted that I can only advise, and it is up to them to implement or not. I need to remember that sometimes, to focus solely on the tasks for which I am paid and refrain from providing any additional commentary.
The post yesterday reflected a similar frustration that has bubbled up over the past few weeks due to the inefficiencies of keyword management and the keyword research process, and most importantly, the people who perpetuate them. I have invested a significant amount of time, energy, and resources, including presentations, training, and money, into creating a process and a tool set that makes the data-intensive process more effective. These efforts, coupled with manually performing data mining thousands of times and now utilizing automation and dynamic processes, make me cringe whenever I see people doing things, in my opinion, in a less-than-optimal manner.
People who have worked with and for me know that I am a process fanatic. I try to ensure that every position has a “book of knowledge” that allows that role to be replicated by anyone who can read. Anyone who has had any extensive conversations knows that my brain works in a multidimensional manner, and I often get frustrated when I see a less-than-optimal decision or process. It is similar to playing three-dimensional chess since it involves working out various angles, pros and cons, and risks and rewards. You may recognize this as classic “overthinking it.” I know it is frustrating for people, especially my wife, and can be exhausting for me. Unfortunately, that is how I am wired, and I do my best to avoid making it a burden on others. It is more acute in areas where I am passionate and fluent in the topic. For as long as I can remember, I have been drawn to opportunities that allow me to make activities repeatable and eliminate human error, often caused by frustration with redundancy and a lack of attention to detail.
When I was 13, I worked for my father over the summer at a trucking company. One day, we visited a remote warehouse site where the company handled delivery, storage, and bagging operations for a chemical fertilizer company. For most of the day, there was nothing for me to do but watch the chaos of this process. Being bored and my severe ADD kicking in, I sketched out a more “efficient process” and tried to show it to the site manager. He blew me off as the pesky kid I was. The next day, I visited various stations and spoke with the personnel, suggesting minor adjustments, but they also dismissed my suggestions.
I was going crazy watching the routing of the trucks to empty their loads and the resulting backup due to inefficiency. The main problem stemmed from the height being too tall and the size of the conveyor belt’s mouth being too small. To work around this, they would have the trucks move back into another area of the warehouse and dump their loads. Then they used front-end loaders to move it bucket by bucket full into the hopper. Due to the tight space, additional trailers had to wait for the loaders to move the pile until they could unload.
I asked the foreman why they did not use a larger hopper. He told me they did not have one, nor the budget for one, and this was working just fine. To him, there was no problem. The trucks were eventually unloaded, and the fertilizer was being loaded into the warehouse, which was his job. However, at any given time, as many as 10 trucks are sitting idle, not moving product. Since I was bored, I walked around the job site and found some old storage containers and other pieces of metal. Borrowing my father’s welder, I created a new receiving bucket for the conveyor belt. I also suggested removing the original stand, which raised the smaller bucket too high, so that trucks could not dump into it.
I again presented the solution and the new hopper, and of course, the foreman and workers were against change. The Site Manager, who was frustrated with the backlog, suggested they try it. My father moved the hopper into place and wanted to ensure it was used correctly. To change the flow of trucks, I set up cones in the morning to redirect the traffic. It worked perfectly and cut the time to offload by 3/4.
This then created a new problem, which the foreman expected. The two guys standing around monitoring the unloading were no longer necessary, and they were the first to complain about the “new problem” of too much being offloaded into the warehouse and not being able to shift it to the bagging area. I had also suggested changes to the bagging process that made it more efficient. Increasing the volume bagged and available for delivery enabled earlier billing. By the end of the week, my father was almost fired and told never to bring me with him again. That being said, senior management wanted to know why the site manager or foreman had not tried to solve this problem. The site manager’s response was perfect – they never thought they had a problem, which is why it did not need solving. This resulted in the site manager being demoted and sent to a smaller site.
This was one of my first big life lessons. I learned that actions might be inefficient for a reason. In some cases, they may know it is inefficient but continue with it to preserve jobs, protect egos, save money, or because a boss told them to do it. In other cases, like this one, the process is flawed, but not to them because they feel it is working fine and have no incentive, need, or responsibility to evaluate other approaches. The other big catch-all, “this is the way we have always done it,” which I heard frequently in nearly every job I have ever had.
Going forward, I will strive to listen more attentively and refrain from trying to solve everyone’s problems for them. If they want to export the data without insight and are willing to pay for it, I will gladly make it happen and take their money without much care of what they do with it once they have it.
