But that's exactly the problem the article describes: That the moment something goes wrong the stores don't have any reserves anymore, because the system is too strictly set on reducing costs and spoilage, seemingly with a total disregard to consumer satisfaction and overall profit. Add to that crazy-sounding control schemes - which maybe is kinda normal in a country like the US without real employee protection laws, but is unthinkable in less free market capitalist societies.
Not sure why you defend your employer here. If the problem is real - which I'm in no position to judge - it would be in his best interest to notice it.
So you think stores should just keep a huge backstock of fresh produce just in case an extreme weather event or some other rare issue hits? That's going to lead to less fresh produce for the 350 days a year when everything goes smoothly.
The OTS system in the article also allows for exceptions - if there were bananas available the store could have stocked up on them. It's just so wrong on many levels - I could spend all day pointing them out, but this thread is getting bigger than I thought and I don't know if I can spend much more time on it. I was going to edit my original comment with more information but it doesn't look like I can anymore.
> So you think stores should just keep a huge backstock of fresh produce just in case an extreme weather event or some other rare issue hits?
Strawman. I said nothing of the sort. I'm taking the article at face value. The article reports that regularly, stores of your chain are understocked that much that you are losing money and customer loyalty. It is not saying those are special rare issues.
Now, there are two options: The article is wrong, or it is right. If it is wrong, then you need to change nothing internally. Customers will see in their nearest store that the stock is alright, some might even come out in support, a small welcome challenge for PR. But looking at this thread, at the comments not being a discussion about journalistic objectivity below your top-comment, there is some support for the thesis of the article. If the article is right, the system needs to be changed if you want to compete with the other stores that actually succeed in stocking the items customers came to the shop for. In that case, the impression I would get from the attitude you are reflecting here (and which according to the article is the one of management) is that parts of WF are burying the head in the sand, which would likely be disastrous for your company.
It is easy to optimize for the wrong metrics, especially big corporations. Short term shareholder value, cost reductions - cost reductions were echoed by management in the article as motivation for the OTS system. Combine that with a good portion of institutional inertia and wrongly placed respect for authority, and this is how companies die. Which, again, might not be at all what is happening here (and Amazon and stuff, I know). It just looks like an example of it, which I think is interesting.
I jumped ahead there and left a step of my reasoning out. The article describes a lack of backstock, due to OTS, causing out-of-stocks when stores have to miss a delivery or two. But if you assume that the vast majority of these issues were in fact caused by unpredictable events, then the only possible solution would be to keep large amounts of extra stock at all times, which is worse for the customer and the company in the end. Obviously the goal is for neither extreme to occur.
The article is wrong about the regularity of the issue, the "weird control systems" (not sure what connection you're seeing with employee protection laws), and the causes.
But you misunderstand me if you think I'm burying my head in the sand. I don't deny that Whole Foods has issues with its ordering processes. In fact, I think the company has been going in the wrong direction there for a long time. The article is just so, so off-base - originally I didn't intend to argue with it, but now I've become this guy: https://xkcd.com/386/
It will be interesting to see if Amazon can improve the situation through automation. Generally I've seen stores that use automated ordering systems be far worse with their out-of-stocks (Kroger, for instance).
Ah, now I think I do understand your position. Best of luck :)
Edit: Just to clarify, the connection with the control scheme and the supply issues as laid out in the article is that it forces employees and store manager to blindly follow the system. Employee protection laws in other countries would prevent "three strikes out" schemes, if the strikes are for "infractions" as small as having one of 400 boxes facing the wrong side, which is one example in the article. That just wouldn't fly in a german court of law, for example, where something like this definitely would end up.
Anecdotally, I have experienced the same phenomenon at several major grocery chains in Canada. City gets hit with a winter storm and Safeway, SuperStore, & Walmart all had empty produce & bread sections. I've also seen it in certain stores during summer months in the run up to a long weekend. Not saying the new supply chain software can't be the cause, but there does seem to be other reasonable explanations.
During a canadian winter storm to have more than usual empty shelves is of course very reasonable ;) And I'm also used to having less products available in some supermarkets when nearing night time. The images shown in the article though seem ridiculous to me.
But I agree, absolutely possible that there are other explanations (including that there is no problem at all), but a wrongly prioritized supply chain scheme/software fits very well to the shown and described issues.
Not sure why you defend your employer here. If the problem is real - which I'm in no position to judge - it would be in his best interest to notice it.