Slashdot Mirror


After Automating Order-Taking, Fast Food Chains Had to Hire More Workers (theatlantic.com)

An anonymous reader quotes the Atlantic: Blaine Hurst, the CEO and president of Panera, told me that because of its new [self-service] kiosks, and an app that allows online ordering, the chain is now processing more orders overall, which means it needs more total workers to fulfill customer demand. Starbucks patrons who use the chain's app return more frequently than those who don't, the company has said, and the greater efficiency that online ordering allows has boosted sales at busy stores during peak hours. Starbucks employed 8 percent more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app...

James Bessen, an economist at Boston University School of Law, found that as the number of ATMs in America increased fivefold from 1990 to 2010, the number of bank tellers also grew. Bessen believes that ATMs drove demand for consumer banking: No longer constrained by a branch's limited hours, consumers used banking services more frequently, and people who were unbanked opened accounts to take advantage of the new technology. Although each branch employed fewer tellers, banks added more branches, so the number of tellers grew overall. And as machines took over many basic cash-handling tasks, the nature of the tellers' job changed. They were now tasked with talking to customers about products -- a certificate of deposit, an auto loan -- which in turn made them more valuable to their employers. "It's not clear that automation in the restaurant industry will lead to job losses," Bessen told me.

7 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Meaningless statistic by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Starbucks employed 8 percent more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app..."

    Employees per store is the only valid statistic to support their contention. Otherwise, it's factoring in new employees in new stores.

    1. Re:Meaningless statistic by Baron_Yam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In terms of employed humans, you also have to include statistics for coffee shops that shut down when a Starbucks popped up.

      Just because Starbucks is employing more people doesn't mean the industry as a whole is doing so.

    2. Re:Meaningless statistic by BlueStrat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Starbucks employed 8 percent more people in the U.S. in 2016 than it did in 2015, the year it launched the app..."

      Employees per store is the only valid statistic to support their contention. Otherwise, it's factoring in new employees in new stores.

      You are correct once market saturation us achieved, as there can only be so many stores per a given area. After that market saturation point is passed, further automation will result in fewer employees when the area in question has enough stores to serve the available market.

      As long as more stores are being added within an area/market, the store chain *as a whole* is employing more total workers within that area/market.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  2. Re:Jevvon's Paradox in Action! by JanneM · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I agree about the coffee quality. However, Starbucks isn't really in the business of selling coffee. They sell space. You really buy a break in a pretty comfortable, relaxed environment; a living room for rent. The overextracted cardboard mug of coffee is just a bonus.

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  3. Re:Innovation by Subm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    > My time is too valuable to piss it away doing something like standing around.

    Written browsing Slashdot.

  4. Win... then lose, then social change by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's all price.

    No, it most certainly isn't.

    Order-taking is half the interface with the customer. In many restaurants, it involves the customer waiting to have their order taken. Automating this part of the process provides a real feeling of getting things going much faster than waiting in line or at a table without having yet gotten anything done. Then there's the issue of the order-taker having gotten the order right.

    For example, McDonalds curbside / online ordering allows you to "favorite" items you like to order, including custom variations like no mustard, extra pickles, etc. This further streamlines the ordering process, reduces errors, and (of course) pleases customers. You can also have the order ready to go, drive up to the curbside slot, and send it immediately, further reducing friction.

    Reducing friction — or even apparently reducing friction — at this juncture tends to lead directly to higher customer satisfaction. That in turn leads to more sales.

    Right now, that leads to more work. That won't last, because all of these jobs will eventually be automated away. The kind of automation we're talking about here isn't the kind of automation that is the real concern. This phase of the process has simply changed from the employee driving it to the customer driving it: they moved the interface to the customer in a way that actually works and makes them happier.

    As the actual food delivery to the store, inventory management, prep, delivery, cleaning and maintenance fall to automation, that is when you'll see human employment in these restaurants fall. We're simply not there yet.

    Best not to confuse the one process with the other.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  5. Re: Win win, I guess? by shmlco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "If you make 150$/hr, and it takes you 4 hours to shop, travel, prep and package your week of food, you cost yourself $600 on top of your grocery prices."

    Often quoted, but never holds in real life. It doesn't matter if you make $10/hr or $50/hr or $150/hr. What matters is whether or not someone will pay you that amount for that period of time.

    A lot of people have jobs with salaries, and "saving" four hours by not cooking doesn't "cost" me $600, since my company isn't going to pay me more money for that time anyway.

    --
    Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.