Bullet is a remuneration system. Nothing supernatural, the idea is on the surface, the results are not long in coming. The name was not invented by me, but by the owner of the company where this system was implemented. Just like that, he listened to the arguments and features, and said: “This is a Bullet!”
He probably meant that he liked the system, not that it was a mythical silver bullet. In fact, the system is quite limited, especially in terms of application, including the owner and the company's development plans.
The Bullet principle is very simple: pay people a share of the profits. Not everyone, but only those who are in the value chain. Trite, simple and boring. The whole point is not in the system itself, not in the division of profits, but in... Well, you’ll find out for yourself.
I don’t claim the highest truth. The name “Bullet” is not a claim to originality or uniqueness. It’s just more convenient to discuss when it’s called in one word. I implemented Puli myself and saw others do it. I don't sell anything. I'm just telling you. You can't do the implementation without a programmer. Therefore, as they say, I’m sorry to contact you.
BACKGROUND
The bullet was born in a struggle that was incessant and terribly exhausting. This struggle has many names - business development, increasing efficiency, loyalty and engagement. This struggle is almost always unequal. On one side stands the owner and, if you're lucky, the director. On the other hand, all the other friends working in the company.
The owner wants to develop the business, tries to make some efforts in this direction, and encounters resistance. At first, it seems to him that resistance is provided by the external environment - clients, competitors, the state, etc. Then he realizes that the main obstacle is inside the company - those same friends.
The contradiction is understandable and understandable. People do something and get paid. Then the owner comes and says that we need to work more, or better. What for? So that he earns more money. And it doesn’t matter that he promises to spend all the extra profit on the development of the company, so that everyone will be happy. People are not fools, and they understand that, at best, he will scale the business - he will buy a new workshop, or build a store. They, the people, will not have their pay increased. There will just be more friends.
Roughly speaking, those who work today must make efforts to ensure that those who work tomorrow will be good. Our grandparents went through something similar in the last century. In principle, judging by the reviews, they have nothing against it - they even say it was interesting. But somehow I want something for myself, and, preferably, in this life.
This, in fact, is the contradiction. You don’t really need to force people to work – they can handle it. But to change something, improve it, speed it up, increase it, or decrease it – you’ll get nowhere. And no one is to blame, there are no villains, everyone acts strictly within the framework of their own interests.
However, there are many ways out of the situation. One of them is the same Bullet. We just need to solve the key issue.
Key issue
The key question is very simple: is the owner willing to pay a constant share of profits to his employees.
If you look at it, he already pays his employees a share. For any period - month, quarter or year - the wage fund constitutes a certain share. True, in terms of costs - this is where it is usually attributed.
The problem is that this share is constantly changing from period to period. And there is a certain probability that this share will be reduced. For example, by doing something useful with efficiency.
The effect can be especially noticeable where people receive a salary. For example, the owner has a supply service that consumes 1 million rubles a month, taking into account taxes, depreciation, electricity and coffee and cookies. If suddenly, somehow magically, sales double, then the supply service will continue to consume 1 million rubles per month, and its share of profit (or costs, whatever) will decrease.
The whole question is contained in this very “magical” way. Here a whole camp of information gypsies comes to the rescue, who try to sell their version “magically”.
The owner will give in, listen to this “ay-nane-nane”, organize the implementation of something like Lean or CRM, but get no results. That is, he receives it, but the opposite of what was intended - the bills from the information gypsies come in impressive, and clearly, without question, they are included in the expense section. But profits are not growing.
This can go on for quite a long time. Some information gypsies are replaced by others, new methods, systems, blockchains and artificial intelligence, and the owner still expects that profits will “magically” increase and the share of profits that he gives to his employees will decrease.
The owner does not always see that information gypsies further aggravate the contradiction that he is trying to overcome with their help. He had a problem: people didn’t care about his desire to develop his own business. But “don’t care” is, as you understand, indifference, indifference, nothing and nothing. Zero.
Because the owner asked the people themselves to increase the efficiency of his business without paying them money for it. And here’s what happens: since you don’t want it for free, here are some screaming handsome men to whom I’ll pay millions, and they’ll do it for you. Well, on you, as experimental subjects.
People naturally resist. Who wants to be the basis for the success of infogypsies? Again, without receiving any increase for it. After all, there is a possibility, albeit small, that the infogypsies are proposing a deal. But they themselves cannot implement and launch this business; they need the help of employees. Is there at least one reason to help them? So that they then start referring to you?
In general, the sooner the owner understands that his share of the profit will not “magically” increase, the better. No, of course, if the owner is smart, or the information gypsies are decent, then no Bullet is needed.
But if nothing works out, then the owner can sit down and think hard. You can't do it on your own. The same goes for information gypsies. However, there is a chance that employees will cope if you give them a share of the profits.
The probability, I must say, is not very high. But it can’t get any worse, since you can’t do it yourself, and your external friends weren’t able to help. You just need to decide for yourself whether you are ready to work with a constant share of profit for yourself and a constant share of profit for your employees.
In absolute terms, the company's income may increase. If the shares remain unchanged, then both the owner's income and the employee's income will increase in absolute terms. Those. There will be more money, but it will have to be shared.
If the owner is ready to try, then you can begin to implement the Bullet.
Self defense
Business programming teaches that self-defense must be built into any system. The risks should be minimal, and in case of failure, you should be able to quickly roll back to the starting point without losing a lot of money and business.
In Poole, self-defense is built into the very principle. The owner agrees that he gives the employees a share of the profit, and this share is unchanged. This means that at the start it is necessary to determine whether the owner is satisfied with this share in principle.
It happens that a business is already operating at a loss. In this case, the Bullet cannot be introduced; the costs must first be dealt with.
If the share back and forth suits you, you can start. Just remember to talk to people and explain to them the essence of the experiment.
In this case, people are not the object, but the subject of the experiment. Roughly speaking, the owner takes them into a share, and they get the opportunity to directly, and to a significant extent, influence what is happening. They are now directly interested in the company's development. The more sales and profits, the higher their income. Well, vice versa.
And the owner, as it were, steps aside, almost on an equal footing. Now, if a company takes a risk, then the company itself is at risk, that is, the whole company, and not just the owner. If it works, everyone will get rich. If it doesn’t work, everyone will be left without pants.
Employee self-defense
I recommend building employee self-protection into the system. On the one hand, profit sharing allows you to earn more. On the other hand, there is a big risk of earning not just less, but much less.
An ordinary employee, as a rule, does not have a very good idea of business risks, because... I'm used to getting paid. If there is a month with poor sales, then the owner has to get out of it in order to somehow repay the employees. He, of course, will cut bonuses and terminate the corporate program for visiting the pool, but it won’t come to the point of pain - everyone will receive their salary.
Therefore, simply transferring to a pure share of profits is too risky. People will get scared and, if something happens, they will run, shouting as they go that the owner deceived them and left them without pants.
I propose a simple option: a minimum salary. If in the new way, based on the share of profit, it turns out to be more than the salary, then pay according to the profit. If the salary is higher, then pay it.
But not everything is so simple - it turns out to be too convenient for employees. Better remember the difference.
For example, in the first month the profit is bad, and the salary was paid. Ok, we'll survive. We only remember the difference between the salary and the profit share, and the employee will owe it to us. The next month they worked well - great, get the profit, but minus the difference formed last month.
Well, the limit of patience must be set. For example, if wages are paid within three months, the experiment can be considered unsuccessful and canceled, returning to the starting point. In this case, the risk, in total terms, is known in advance.
Yes, but there is no need to remember the positive difference between the amount for profit and salary. Employees, like the owner, must be in constant good shape, otherwise the temptation at some point to relax and receive a salary without any sense of guilt will be too great.
Initial beats
I suggest you don’t worry about it here. Since the owner decided at the start that the payroll share suits him, then take it as the starting point.
For example, if the supply salary, in fact, is 5% of the profit, then such a percentage should be taken as a share. Do the same with any other positions in the value chain.
The easiest way, usually, is with sellers - they already pay a percentage of profit, revenue, or payments. We just need to bring it to a common indicator - profit.
Where the bullet penetrated, sellers, suppliers, storekeepers, designers, and production entered the chain.
It’s clear with the sellers, I won’t explain.
Suppliers, in general, too. Sales, production, and even design development depend on their work - prototypes of parts must be ordered on time.
Storekeepers - not to say that they are directly in the value chain, but they were thrown into the pile because they already had almost piecework wages.
It’s also clear with production. These guys produce something that they then sell.
The designers were included so that at least for a second in their lives they would think about sales, money, profits and clients. Otherwise, they, as programmers, prefer to stand on the sidelines. Not forgetting, of course, to complain that they don’t pay enough.
Trick
This is where the moment comes for an important clever trick. The share should be determined for the function as a whole, and not for the employee.
If 5% is for supply, then 5% is for supply, and not 0.5% for supply (if there were 10 people at the beginning of the experiment).
Well, that is. It doesn’t matter whether there are 10 people there or 50 – they always receive 5% of the profit, for everyone.
Firstly, this is one of the elements of the system’s self-defense against overstaffing. Otherwise, the supply manager will employ both his wife and mother-in-law in order to receive a hefty percentage of the profit.
Secondly, it is an incentive to improve efficiency by reducing staff. Alas, beautiful girls who only pour coffee for the boss and print meeting minutes (with the help of the system administrator) still exist.
Now such a girl will be a burden not for the owner, but for the entire supply department. Including for the boss. No, if the entire supply department wants to see a beautiful girl next to them - kicking them in the mouth, they decide for themselves where to spend their percentage of the profits.
carve-up
It is important to avoid the other extreme - stupidly giving a percentage to a department so that they can divide it as they want. In principle, sometimes this is probably justified. But the examples that I have seen in life suggest the opposite.
If the share is simply given to the head of the department so that he can divide it at his own discretion, then the result will not be an effective function, but an Overlord with henchmen. The key condition for a high income will not be a good job, but a good relationship with your boss.
Decent people will not be able to work in such conditions and will leave, even despite their potentially high income. Moreover, we are talking not only about sellers, for whom building relationships with anyone is part of their profession, but also about the same designers.
Therefore, the sharing rules must be transparent – both inside the function and outside it. And, preferably, automated. Let me give you a few examples.
Examples of sharing
Everything is simple with sellers. There is a buyer's order, there is a manager in it. By default, this is the manager assigned to the client, but it can also be someone else (in case of vacation or dismissal of the main one).
If there are two types of sellers - active and support, then the percentage of the order is divided in the agreed proportion. Active – the one who found the client. Escort – the one who formalizes and accompanies the transaction.
If two people worked on the transaction, then both should be included in the order. More precisely, give them the opportunity to indicate it themselves.
It is easier to divide supplies according to nomenclature. Where this was implemented, they divided it into categories. For example, all forged and cast billets are purchased by one, all gears by another, rolled products by a third, etc.
Shares in profits are calculated based on the shares of the cost of materials and parts that suppliers bought. Roughly speaking, the supplier's share of profit is equal to the share of the items purchased by him in the cost price.
This method is not always suitable, because... there may be distortions in the cost - for example, if some detail takes on half the cost. But in the context where this was introduced, there were few such distortions - two types.
The first is the hefty body parts. But everyone got together and decided that they always have so many hemorrhoids due to the quality of casting/forging that it wouldn’t be a shame to pay a lot of money to the person who deals with them. Because there were no takers anyway.
The second is small expensive parts, some items of increased hardness. So high that you can’t buy horseradish anywhere. It’s even simpler here: they are needed so rarely, and there are so many difficulties that it’s not scary to pay a lot.
It’s more interesting with the designers - they were assigned a copyright percentage. Roughly speaking, there is a share in the profit - let it be 5%. So, a plate is attached to each item in the nomenclature indicating the participation shares of each designer.
For example, a designer drew a part from start to finish. There will be a single entry on the plate with his last name and a 100% share. This means that when selling this part - separately or as part of a product - he will receive 5% of the profit.
Then another designer made improvements and issued a notice - a second line appears on the plate with his last name and, say, a 10% share. Accordingly, the percentage of profit will be divided in a ratio of 9 to 1.
The question arises - what to do if the designer quits? We decided that in this case his share “burns out.” If he “owned” 90% of the copyright on this detail, then only 10% will be paid to those who are still working. And when the part is finalized again, the shares will be recalculated.
At that time, storekeepers already had a piecework system in place in rubles per kilogram of parts that they shipped/received/moved. This system was left, only rubles per kg now meant not absolute income, but a share in profit.
Automation
This whole thing needs to be automated quickly. There is nothing particularly complicated - you just need to add the appropriate fields to the entity, such as orders from customers and suppliers, nomenclature, automate notifications, etc.
The main thing is that your cost is calculated as quickly and accurately as possible. Well, and profit, accordingly. While only the owner was interested in profit, no one cared that the cost calculation ended on the 20th of the next month. Now it is advisable to have this figure in the first days of the month.
First plug
The first bottleneck that the launch of the Bullet comes up against is job responsibilities. And this is one of the main advantages of the bullet.
Let's go back a little to our dark past. There were some departments and employees. They were all doing something - a whole bunch of responsibilities. Some prescribed regulations, instructions and processes. People came up with the other part for themselves. The third part consisted of all sorts of orders from superior and parallel superiors and employees.
People do something, and some result is obtained. Link what people do to the outcome, i.e. profit was impossible. Except for the sellers, of course. But this didn’t matter to anyone - after all, they paid the salary.
The supplier sat and ordered the necessary parts and materials. The need for these details was determined by some plan, report, or God knows what else. In addition, he also compiled some kind of report, like a deficit statement. They also forced him to take a photograph of his working day, sometimes. He also has to answer letters, go to meetings, etc.
And now - bdyms, and they pay for profit. Cognitive dissonance arises. Why make a debit sheet? How does it help you earn more? Why answer letters from accounting departments, economists, programmers, etc.?
For the first few days, people, by inertia, continue to work as they always have. But then questions arise - from them, from their boss, from other departments: why the hell are you doing this?
And this is where the fun begins. Often, no one can remember why a certain duty is being performed, for whom a report is being drawn up, who reads letters or monitors some stupid indicator.
It's getting ridiculous. The supplier sits and asks the question - why should I coordinate with the designers every purchase of any part? He asks this question to his boss. He is indignant - and really, what for? He starts running, yelling, asking who came up with this nonsense. The search leads to the quality service, which is in charge of the processes, and there is a piece of paper - it turns out that the supply manager himself came up with this crap in order to protect himself from claims from the quality control department during acceptance.
There is a hard and fast revision of job responsibilities, reminiscent of the Italian New Year. It is important to maintain a balance here. Nonsense that was once invented by the employees performing the function themselves can be safely thrown out. But the duties invented by “serious” services, such as accounting or lawyers, should not be thrown out so easily - you still need to take a closer look. Otherwise, business risks may increase sharply.
And the sellers will walk around and repeat “we told you so.” After all, they were always on their toes, and they were always whining, kicking off to the last from the incomprehensible duties assigned to other services. Nobody listened to them in those days, of course, because they didn’t understand.
Right to development
The owner or director must retain the right to determine the vectors and methods of development of the company. It is clear that he already has this right, but this must be clearly stated at the beginning of the experiment.
Otherwise, people may get the impression that some kind of self-government has begun, and now they themselves decide what to do with the profit. Unfortunately, most employees have never been in business and have no understanding of the importance of investment.
People, first of all, will want to earn more with a minimum of effort. It is easier for them to operate the current system than to make changes of any kind to it. They will behave like bad owners (or ordinary owners, whatever) - try to take as much money as possible from the business.
In principle, their money is not needed for development, i.e. there is no need to try to take part of their share of the profits on the investment. The right to make any changes is sufficient. And people are already trapped.
Trap
If you remember, we started with the fact that no one wants to develop the company, introduce new methods of work, or increase efficiency. People simply don’t need this, because they pay the same – both now, and in case of success of the changes, and in case of their failure.
After the launch of the Puli, the situation changes dramatically. If you leave everything as it is, you won’t make any more money. You can sit like this for some time, increasing your income only by saying that “now we will work normally, since this is the case.” But soon, and inevitably, a ceiling will be reached when the old system stops growing.
The difference is that now people see this ceiling, understand it and don't want it. After all, they receive a share of the profits, but profits do not grow. And they will accept the need for change. Well, you will have to participate, maybe even with desire.
Also, people will no longer be indifferent to the results of the changes. The success of the changes will increase their income - positive motivation. Failure to change will reduce their income - negative motivation. People care about both outcomes of change. That's what was required.
Moreover, it is not even necessary to achieve people’s consent with the methods and tools that constitute the essence of the changes. For example, the director wants to implement CRM (and we remember that he has the right to choose). People will not only have to participate in these changes, but it will be in their vested interests to lead these changes to success. It is clear that an incorrectly implemented CRM is simply a burden, a dead system into which you need to enter a bunch of data without any output.
Stakhanov
After launching the Bullet, at first, a strange picture will be observed. It seems that now you can earn more, but this does not happen. Everyone shows approximately the same result as before, on salary. As if they were waiting for something.
They are waiting for an example. For years, people have had the concepts of “norm” and “plan” hammered into their heads, and they, consciously or subconsciously, rely on them. Now, having launched the Bullet, we seem to have removed the concept of the norm - there is no ceiling. But people will find their own norm – “the way it was before.”
You can, of course, try to explain to them and tell them what wonderful opportunities they have now. But it's better to show with an example.
For example, as they did in the USSR. They took a man named Stakhanov, sent him to the mine (after expelling everyone from there), gave him assistants (to do minor work), and ordered him to set a record. He established it - he made 14 standards per shift, if I’m not mistaken (the description of the method of implementing this event was taken from the book “Russian Model of Management” by Prokhorov).
The point is clear - a living, real demonstrative example is being created. New normal. Let it be unattainable for now, or seem so, but at least some clue for intention.
It happens that a Stakhanovite forms on its own. Usually this is some new employee who has not yet gotten used to the system, has not had time to get used to it and has not been nurtured by the old rules. For example, in one of the companies where the Puli prototype worked, such a Stakhanovite took and made 4 norms, completely changing the reality and attitude towards what was happening. Nobody worked the same way anymore.
Perhaps we can wait a month, and if the Stakhanovist himself does not show up, create him artificially. Agree with a good person, help him, organize a “feat”, support him. Better secretly, of course. Well, it seems so to me.
Probka
In the example I'm talking about, Bullet was enabled for the entire value chain at once. This is both good and bad.
Good - because there is no other way. Actually, before the launch of Puli, it was already operating in one link of the entire chain – sales. As a result, one link cared about sales and profits, but the rest did not. Therefore, nothing worked, if you look at the whole chain.
It’s bad - because due to failures in one link, the entire chain will collapse. The exception is constructors, because they are not in the main stream, but in the supply stream - they are developing new products, i.e. They work, one might say, for development, or for future sales.
If, during the implementation of Puli, it happens that all the functions are understood and accepted, they change their mode of operation, but the same suppliers do not, then there will immediately be a traffic jam. The classic Goldratt theory of constraints will be at work here, and the overall speed/performance of the chain will be determined by the speed/performance of the slowest link.
Previously, it didn’t matter, because the performance of each link was not particularly measured. Well, there was a traffic jam, well, we had an argument at a meeting, well, we wrote a memo “to fix it immediately.” Three nails worked and everyone forgot about the cork.
Now traffic jams are becoming a real problem. Especially if the traffic jam is not one-time, random, but systematic. Some dudes are sitting there and don’t want to live in a new way. Either passively, or actively, or actively-passively, like the Italian strike.
This, of course, needs to be sorted out. It happens that a traffic jam is created by one person - the head of the function. He’s against it, that’s all. And he manages his people the way “I think is right.” In principle, there is nothing bad here - a person makes a choice. Only now he interferes with others - both colleagues and business. It's better to do something with him.
You don’t have to fire him; you can isolate him. Put another person in his place, and arrange a downshift for the cork maker. Well, it seems like, since you’re such a good guy, and you know how to work correctly, sit down and work, stop managing.
The easiest way to track traffic jams is by unfinished work - everything is in accordance with the TOC. Where the most tasks have accumulated, there is a traffic jam. And here you can’t do without decent automation.
For example, we look at supply shortages, i.e. unmet sales/production needs are a work in progress. Don't forget about the Iceberg, i.e. measuring the duration of this work in progress (such as “this product item has been in shortage for a month now”).
Explosion of the brain
At first, people will experience cognitive dissonance from applying the essence of the Bullet to their work. They will not understand/accept that they are being paid for what is being sold.
Here is a supplier who always bought bolts and nuts. He was given a list of items and quantities, he ordered, tracked payment and delivery, and waited for the next task. He was not particularly interested in who needed bolts and nuts, why or when. The work is separate, the salary is separate, there is not much connection between them.
And then - bam, and only what is sold is paid for. You bought bolts, but they are not sold, either in the form of goods or in the form of product components, and you do not receive money. The question of why I bought these bolts arises naturally, although it didn’t exist before.
At the same time, there may be a nearby task of purchasing items, without which no sale can be made. For example, a client ordered 40 items and does not want to receive them in parts - just all at once. One item is out of stock, and the entire order is in the box, waiting for the spring. Or, to assemble the finished product, there is not enough FUM tape, the purchase of which someone botched.
Now, with the introduction of the Bullet, we have to think. It is desirable, of course, for the boss to think – at least for his subordinates. It's just more common this way. But sometimes you have to think for yourself.
The principle is simple: you need to do what helps sales. It sounds corny, but no one has done this before. This is what causes a brain explosion.
This principle is even more difficult for designers to understand. They always sat on the sidelines of sales, and deliberately. Well, like, we are not traders, but engineers. And then there’s some kind of Bullet, and now your salary depends on how what you drew/developed/modified is sold.
The designers' brains are simply boiling. They never thought in such categories, did not work towards such a goal. All they were interested in in sales was whether the client’s hardware would break or not. Moreover, the interest was not engineering, but selfish - they will scold you.
None of them will anymore modify parts that people don’t buy anyway. And before they were finalizing it because there was such a task in the plan drawn up by someone a year ago.
What I mean is that you have to be prepared for a brain explosion, accompany it, and lead it in a positive direction. Otherwise, it will go into the negative – sabotage, dismissals, open resistance.
Development ideas
Sometimes it seems that people are full of wonderful ideas for the development of the company, and with normal motivation they will not only express these ideas, but will also implement them. This is especially true for people themselves.
Most likely, after switching to Bullet, there will indeed be more ideas and proposals. But there is one “but”: the less time has passed since the transition, the worse the ideas.
Here it works in much the same way as water in a tap after a water main has been repaired - first some kind of turbidity flows. The first ideas expressed by employees will relate to a previous reality, a different level of thinking. As Einstein said, problems cannot be solved by being at the same level at which they were created.
You just need to understand: a person has been on a salary all his life. He thinks in terms of salary, small bonuses, tasks from his boss, plans and irresponsibility. After switching to Bullet, he, by inertia, will think in exactly the same way. He simply reformulates his ideas in new terms.
You should especially be wary of ideas that begin with the words “I have long proposed ...” or “The whole world is doing this: ...”. If it was proposed a long time ago, then the idea belonged to a different context. If the whole world does this, then the idea will be completely different, because the whole world is sitting on a salary.
Let people get used to the new reality, get used to it, take a closer look, see real problems - those that were not shown before. The dregs of old ideas will merge, and a normal, clean flow of useful proposals will open.
Mathematics
You probably have a question - what profit should you take as a basis? Marginal? EBITDA? Clean?
There is no exact answer, you have to look at the situation. Personally, it seems to me that we need to take a formula that takes into account the maximum costs. In addition to the owner's dividends, of course - if they exist, as an entity.
If we take, for example, marginal profit, then you can be left without pants - the income of employees will not depend on “heavy” costs, such as capital investments, depreciation or the acquisition of fixed assets. Then the question of buying a new machine will become a headache only for the owner.
Owner's responsibility
It doesn’t happen often, but it happens that the introduction of Puli leads to an unexpected effect - the owner disappears. Not from business in general, but from the implementation of Puli.
While everyone received a salary, the owner or director could pretend that he was the only one caring about the development of the business, doing something, and the rest were quitters. He suggested, forced, asked to change something, but nothing worked. Well, he was very proud of this role of the offended.
After the introduction of Puli, the situation may change. For example, it becomes obvious to everyone what changes need to be made. And, alas, part of the responsibility for implementing changes falls on this owner/director.
The picture is changing fundamentally. He used to tell everyone what to do. And then they start telling him what to do. Just do it, not put forward ideas. This is where the owner disappears.
There is such an effect, I don’t know what it’s called: people offer a bunch of ideas for development, but only because they know that no one will implement them. Directors behave in the same way - they are just people.
While the owner knew that no one would, could, or wanted to implement his ideas, he was gushing with these ideas. As soon as the environment becomes flexible and pliable, ready for change, he becomes scared - what if he offered bullshit? And he falls silent.
And when the environment comes to him with offers, he merges. And the implementation of Puli is stopped at the initiative of the owner. Roughly speaking, it becomes a traffic jam, even without being a link in the value chain.
They all throw out the bullet, everyone forgets about the experiment, everyone gets paid, everyone works somehow, and the director continues to whine that no one needs anything except him.
Summary
There’s still a lot I want to write, but already there are almost 30 thousand letters. The topic is probably too broad for one article.
The Bullet payment system is effective, but complicated. First of all, mentally, because is based on principles that are not close to most people. Therefore, it must be implemented carefully, closely accompanying the process and promptly responding to emerging problems.
Source: habr.com