Paul C. Dickie wrote:

Who "forced" them to do that?

The answer is that *nobody* forced these changes on the company. Even

If you were in a situation where in order to maintain your current
service level, with an increasing customer base, and growing product
line, you needed a bigger / additional warehouse, then for good business
reasons you have been "forced" to acquire one. If the council decides
that you are not able to extend your current facility (presumably the
most desirable option) then you are looking at moving.

if they had been somehow compelled to move the warehouse -- whether by

location. They do not even need to be on the same continent.

Agreed - I think you may find they spotted that option - that is why
their head office remains in Yeovil, and the new warehouse is now
elsewhere.

I am someone who believes in the maxim that one should measure twice and
cut only once. Had the move been properly planned, the cock-ups would
not have occurred, for the old system would have been left up and
running until the new system was working at least as well.

Were you sat in the boardroom at the time these plans were put in place?
Hence are you *certain* that this was not "properly planned"?

Out in the real world "**** happens", sometimes you still cock up
regardless of the amount of planning. More to the point "all going to
plan" is _not_ the object of the exercise. Arriving at the desired
result is more important.

The answer is neither you or I know, it may have been meticulously
planned, or it may have been jotted on the back of a fag packet.

That's the trouble with bean-counters: they expect savings to commence

True... they get everywhere.

from day one. No, it would *not* be "economically sound management" in
those terms, but it would have ensured that there would not have been
the serious problems that they've experienced. As a result, Screwfux
will now have to advertise more extensively again and will have to offer
discounts and deals in the hope of winning back the customers they've
lost -- and just how much "good business sense" do you suppose *that*
makes, bearing in mind that the cock-ups were entirely avoidable?

I expect all the free publicity will actually win them plenty of extra
customers to make up for it. Getting their name mentioned on TV and the
papers will find a whole new audience who did not even know they existed
before.

Exactly the same happened with the computer parts distribution outfit
Komplett. They made a balls up with pricing on their web site and caused
lots of customer complaints. The management wrote a (quite amusing)
public apology that got reported widely. Net result was a massive influx
of new customers who just went to the site to "have a look" and liked
what they saw.

They had run out of capacity at their original location, the local
council refused permission to extend. That sounds "broken" to me.


Even were that so, it still indicates a lack of imagination. Why should
they have *all* of their products in only *one* location? Why not have

It would be sensible to have some redundancy I would agree. Given the
value of their stock inventory I am not sure how viable this would be
(or even if the lines of credit to support it would be available)

more than one depot? Come to that, why not despatch some items directly
from a B&Q stock warehouse?

I have no idea... I could guess at incompatible IT systems, and limited
product range. (IIRC Screwfix was acquired by Kingfisher rather than
being created by them).


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/