Aveng1991

This form or efficiency enforcement is already a wildly practiced method in apparel manufacturing. What you need is a performance metric form and a pen and one supervisor to monitor the unit. Additionally a white board in public display with each worker’s hourly output also works.

A better method of efficiency is also commonly practiced by some factories, which is to pay per unit. This practice ties the earning to the output and is far more efficient. Workers do feel in control and can earn 3X - 4X if they were on monthly salary. However this method is skill oriented and many not be practical all the time, plus it can be a little costly.

The assembly line method is a cheaper alternative, since it forfeits the need for every workers to be equally skilled. The downside to this method is that inefficiency can easily creep in.

The founders simply digitized existing practice into a piece of software. The demo could have been framed in a better way, but simply shifting the blame on the founders is very convenient.

Factories loose contract over minor delays and issues. Often times the difference between workers enjoying a little humane working conditions is 20 cents, which big retail refuse to pay while the same goods retail for 4X- 5X margin.

The problem isn’t the software, since most factories already employ similar process in other manual ways. Factories that adhere to efficiency survive, those who don’t simply die. Even 10% efficiency boost can mean a lot in industries with razor thin margins.

In the context of the current topic, follow the orders means meeting deadlines and maintaining cost. Big retail weld massive power over manufacturers, consumers over big retail, the desire for faster and cheaper goods over consumers. It’s a loop where the blame shifts as per the convenience. As a manufacturer, I have also seen some factories passing on the opportunity to contract for some really big retailers, since taking on their orders meant squeezing their workers.

At the end of the day, it’s all about efficiency.But running efficiently shouldn’t come at the cost of low paid workers.

Yes that’s totally true. I have seen huge orders being cancelled at last min due to few days delay. Factories loose contracts over minor issues. The whole mass production phenomenon is very unhealthy esp in fashion where trends changes every week; the pressure to churn the production on time is even greater than other industries.

Not every factories are sweatshops; even good humane factories are under tremendous pressure to run efficiently. Running a business efficiently isn’t a crime. However I do agree that the demo could have been a little more better.

The founders merely translated existing practices into a piece of software. While the demo was a little off, the pain point is pretty valid. As a manufacturer,I have seen factories loose contracts over 20 cents, while the same goods is retailed 4X-5X margin at $85. At the end of the day factories rarely make margins on COG (Cost of Goods), but survive on the residues of efficiency. Even though volume is the game, brutal efficiency is the rule. I personally feel it’s a misplaced backlash on the founders or the factories, while the main enablers are the Big retailers. Factories are at the mercy of big retailers, their relationship dynamic akin to mob boss-henchman, where the factories simply follow the orders.

Most factories practice two modes of compensation: 1. Per pc rate - Payment is directly tied to the output, more efficient. Requires skilled workers and can sometimes be a little costlier and impractical. Defects are deducted from the workers pay.

2. Monthly salary - This setup can accommodate semi skilled workers since each worker only handles one part of the whole. It’s a relatively cheaper process. However inefficiencies can easily creep in, defects can pile up which can wipe off the whole margin and ruin the factory.

I don’t believe in running a sweatshop, but even well run humane factories have to battle inefficiencies all the time. The line between marginal point inefficiencies can mean canceled contracts, cancelled goods and financial losses. At the end of the day it’s the workers who have to take the brunt. The upside of efficiency is timely wages; the downside is already obvious. The upside of inefficiency is a little break for workers; the downside is job loss and unpaid wages.

Hence I am not a fan of mass production esp under contract from Big retailers.

Biases are the result of our collective experiences, exposures & limitations accumulated over time. And we all have inherent biases to some degree shaped by our past & present, hence biases with all its flaws is a mental apparatus that people employ to understand stuffs. As such YC or any VCs aren’t immune to forming biases of their own. And given the massive volume of applications they have to go through under time constraints; they must definitely take into account multiple factors and signals that aligns with their biases in the context of their past successes.. And whatever biases that’s taken shape over time, as long as they are right most of the time, it does make it reasonable albeit it’s inherent flaws which might miss out on some exceptional founders in few cases.

However biases mostly work in information vacuum or when there’s limited set of information to take way from on ideas that are really early or unexplored. I imagine measurable results on the context of your startup idea is the best antidote to YC biases in most cases. For founders lacking in other aspects; I imagine the only viable option is to weigh in with quantifiable results. YC and other VCs might have their biases in some aspects, but there’s one common bias everyone is victim to which is “RESULTS”. So for simple founders like me who is limited by the structure of the application process, I have found a loophole which is for every section that vaguely masks your background or accomplishments, there are also sections that asks for results and numbers which is where you can derive favorable outcome from. And for that very reason, I am trying to game YC biases by focusing primarily on results.