- Joined
- Jun 8, 2011
- Messages
- 33,854
So true!
Archived Worked in stocks today for the first time
- Thread starter SpotThe
- Start date
- Replies 29
- Views 5K
- Status
sigma7
Former ETL-All the Things
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 2,415
I honestly think the task list is a great idea, but it leaves no room for error when it comes to zone, filling multiple locations and scanning all locations. So the zero error safety filters which a great for negating unnecessary shortage, also can prevent actual outs to be counted down. I have a love/hate relationship with instocks.
I read an email from our Group AP Market Leader in October that spelled out pretty clearly what happened to our instocks process(or lack of one since). AP is focused on controlling what they deem "UNNECESSARY RESEARCH" by focusing on count update dollars from your scanning on a weekly basis. In order to do research you now must jump through a series of hoops(reshop for whole store complete,truck and backstock complete,green backroom location accuracy, aisles power zoned) before you can do any research. So the task list is out the window forcing you to do SAR in specific segments to get any scanning in. Our stores are expected to shrink this count update dollar number every week or we have told by our APBP that research will be shut down in our stores completely. No attention has been focused on trailer inquiries or reporting mispicks, just count updates by instocks teams.
Since this heightened focus began research scans in our group have dropped over 50%, we actually had a store that recently had more EXF scans in a week that the entire group had research scans. Stores have also significantly dropped the amount of drastic count items they report each week(these being the largest count update dollar issues each week). With significantly less scans being done research with location % have shot up, and stores are being directed to do EXF scans to counter balance this. Does this sound like what other stores have seen happen to their instocks process? Your caught between 2 metrics that when equally enforced essentially eliminate research but your being asked to fill your floor without the only tool your have to effectively do it, reseaching your floor.If HQ has some guidelines or best practice updates on how we are supposed to make this work and someone on TBR knows where to find them please share them with your fellow instocks people.
Since this heightened focus began research scans in our group have dropped over 50%, we actually had a store that recently had more EXF scans in a week that the entire group had research scans. Stores have also significantly dropped the amount of drastic count items they report each week(these being the largest count update dollar issues each week). With significantly less scans being done research with location % have shot up, and stores are being directed to do EXF scans to counter balance this. Does this sound like what other stores have seen happen to their instocks process? Your caught between 2 metrics that when equally enforced essentially eliminate research but your being asked to fill your floor without the only tool your have to effectively do it, reseaching your floor.If HQ has some guidelines or best practice updates on how we are supposed to make this work and someone on TBR knows where to find them please share them with your fellow instocks people.
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 60
I've never heard anything about count update dollars being out of control from my ETL-AP. The only time have contact with AP is when I have to talk with them about outrageous count adjustment that need to be done; mainly things on the drastic count change report.
The problem with Instocks in my store can absolutely be attributed to the fact that literally every ETL in my store knows absolutely nothing about what our process is supposed to accomplish. When I talk about using various applications in the PDA, they use the same terms that I do - e.g. "standalone research", "standalone outs", etc. - but it's abundantly clear that, based on the context in which they use them, they are simply mirroring my language but don't really know what they are saying.
A couple examples: First, just a couple weeks ago, I was talking to my TL about scanning in Entertainment. For more than a year that he has been overseeing Instocks, he hadn't scanned with us once until that day. He said he was going to make an effort to get to know our process better so he would be able to speak to it in the future. Remember, this is more than a year after he took over the department. One would think he would have thought of that sooner. Anyway, during our conversation, I kept trying to explain different instances when one would use Standalone Outs as opposed to scanning within the task list or using Standalone Research. After a couple minutes, it finally dawned on him that I was talking about two different things. He asked me, "Wait, so how is Outs different from Research?"
My own supervisor doesn't even know the basics of the job he is supposed to be overseeing.
The problem with Instocks in my store can absolutely be attributed to the fact that literally every ETL in my store knows absolutely nothing about what our process is supposed to accomplish. When I talk about using various applications in the PDA, they use the same terms that I do - e.g. "standalone research", "standalone outs", etc. - but it's abundantly clear that, based on the context in which they use them, they are simply mirroring my language but don't really know what they are saying.
A couple examples: First, just a couple weeks ago, I was talking to my TL about scanning in Entertainment. For more than a year that he has been overseeing Instocks, he hadn't scanned with us once until that day. He said he was going to make an effort to get to know our process better so he would be able to speak to it in the future. Remember, this is more than a year after he took over the department. One would think he would have thought of that sooner. Anyway, during our conversation, I kept trying to explain different instances when one would use Standalone Outs as opposed to scanning within the task list or using Standalone Research. After a couple minutes, it finally dawned on him that I was talking about two different things. He asked me, "Wait, so how is Outs different from Research?"
My own supervisor doesn't even know the basics of the job he is supposed to be overseeing.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2012
- Messages
- 60
The second example I have that demonstrates why Instocks is so screwed up in my store, and most likely in other stores: For a long time, I was under the impression that EXF was only to be used for non-planogram ends and the check lanes, which is all true. Except, I had misunderstood the "check lanes" part of that to mean "only the end caps". As it turns out, EXF is perfectly acceptable to use on the check lane candy. A week before I had this epiphany, I had argued with my STL about how we shouldn't use EXF on the check lane candy because it would have dire consequences on the accumulator.
After I learned of my mistake, I decided I would talk to him about it, admit my mistake, make the change going forward, and hopefully that would open up a productive dialogue as to how we could fix some other things with Instocks, specifically overuse of EXF. During my conversation with him, I explained how bad data being given to the accumulator can add excessive work to many different workcenters. His response was, "Well, "in theory" (he actually did use air quotes) that's what they say will happen. But I've found that the accumulator only really has a negative effect on maybe 2% of the product in the store, which is really minor. The other 98% of the product here isn't really going to be impacted. So EXF isn't really that bad"
Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "Oh really?! You've found all that out while sitting in your office, all day everyday? I've never even seen you log into a PDA, let alone work a pull, pull something from the backroom, scan something on Instocks, set a POG, nothing!"
The bottom line is, when the person who is in charge of the entire store doesn't know how one process impacts another, specifically Instocks, and simply uses anecdotal evidence to make a judgement call, there really is no hope for that process to run efficiently.
After I learned of my mistake, I decided I would talk to him about it, admit my mistake, make the change going forward, and hopefully that would open up a productive dialogue as to how we could fix some other things with Instocks, specifically overuse of EXF. During my conversation with him, I explained how bad data being given to the accumulator can add excessive work to many different workcenters. His response was, "Well, "in theory" (he actually did use air quotes) that's what they say will happen. But I've found that the accumulator only really has a negative effect on maybe 2% of the product in the store, which is really minor. The other 98% of the product here isn't really going to be impacted. So EXF isn't really that bad"
Meanwhile, I'm thinking, "Oh really?! You've found all that out while sitting in your office, all day everyday? I've never even seen you log into a PDA, let alone work a pull, pull something from the backroom, scan something on Instocks, set a POG, nothing!"
The bottom line is, when the person who is in charge of the entire store doesn't know how one process impacts another, specifically Instocks, and simply uses anecdotal evidence to make a judgement call, there really is no hope for that process to run efficiently.
- Status
