Data-Driven Espresso

I have a well-earned reputation as a "coffee snob" at work. Co-workers snicker as I don my jacket, preparing to walk eight blocks in subzero temperatures just for a better cup of coffee. After earning this reputation, I'm often asked about coffee, particularly espresso. When asked about options for making espresso at home, I usually respond with another question—do you want a new hobby?

Lately, I've tunneled deeply into the bottomless rabbit hole of coffee. As is my nature, I've taken an intensely data-driven approach to experimenting with flavor and maintaining consistency. Tightly controlling variables and changing one at a time is the only meaningful way to judge the outcome of a change. But, of course, this requires extreme precision, which is where equipment and technique come into play.

Most espresso machines, even those at the high end, fail to provide feedback about the brewing process. Defects manifest themselves clearly through tasting, but the ultimate cause is often unclear. This lack of transparency is frustrating for a person with a deeply analytical personality. Luckily, data-driven coffee nerds now have options.

A monumentally modest company named Decent has become an industry leader in the art of brewing espresso with extreme precision only afforded by an automated, software-driven design. Every variable can be controlled and dissected, from pressure to flow, weight, temperature, and time.

The DE-1 after brewing the second best espresso I’ve ever had.

Decent Espresso Machine

The Decent espresso machine is a game-changer. The machine offers an unprecedented level of control and precision that is unmatched by other espresso makers. This level of precision allows for a level of consistency that is unparalleled. There is no better option for technophile coffee lovers looking to take their espresso brewing game to the next level.

The machine's software allows for an incredible level of customization. Users can create and save their own recipes and profiles, tailoring the brewing process to their exact preferences. The software also provides real-time feedback, making it easy to make adjustments throughout the extraction process.

One of the most impressive features of the Decent machine is its ability to track and display data about each shot. For example, below is a ten-second pre-infusion followed by a standard nine-bar pressure profile compared with a pre-infusion followed by a long "bloom" phase that reduces astringency and bitterness.

The traditional flat nine-bar pressure profile has become the industry standard not because it offers the best extraction, but because it is a good compromise between quality and time—an essential consideration for a busy cafe. Despite decades of incremental improvement, applying modern technology to a century-old brewing process demonstrates that no system, no matter how refined, can transcend the benefits of human creativity mixed with a pinch of technology.

The Paradox of Efficiency

It started earlier than I thought. In January, I wrote an article making predictions for 2023. One of my subheadings was “A Year of Doing More with Less,” where I argued that companies need to look for focused, strategic areas of investment to increase efficiency. We’re now seeing significant layoffs in the technology sector. Year to date, Google has laid off 12,000 workers, Microsoft 10,000 employees, and Salesforce 8,000. Unfortunately, these companies are taking a short-term view of efficiency that will damage their long-term success. Instead of finding areas where technologies can work together to provide multiplicative value, these CEOs are chasing short-term gains over long-term efficiency. I would argue that this quest for efficiency may decrease real efficiency.

Aggressive Headcount Reduction Limits Cross-Selling

Customer acquisition has its limits. Eventually, continued growth requires selling additional services to existing customers. Gathering revenue figures from sales is a trivial task, but it is challenging to pinpoint how much customer satisfaction with the service of existing products plays a role. The difficulty attributing hard figures to servicing makes these areas prime targets for headcount reduction. Why would a customer consider making another purchase when the business cannot provide support for products you’ve already bought? Platform lock-in has limits, and customers will eventually move to a competitor. Headcount reduction decisions are often made with the flawed assumption that all other variables will remain constant—productivity gains elsewhere will offset the smaller workforce. But this is seldom true unless the reduction is minimal.

The Inefficient Process of Gaining Efficiency

A consequence of chasing efficiency is its opportunity cost—its drain of resources that would have promoted real efficiency in the long term. Isn’t it curious that many companies most aggressively pursuing efficiency at all costs are often stuck making incremental improvements to existing technology? Why aren’t they most often responsible for radical, groundbreaking innovations? Why do comparatively small startups with different organizational values often make these genuine innovations? Companies with aggressive management directives to slash costs and reduce overhead often fail to invest in areas that produce innovation. In the long term, this lack of investment profoundly impacts company culture, often precipitating an exodus of forward-looking employees. Our industrial society values rapid and predictable returns on investment and neglects the necessarily inefficient process of innovation—shareholders see it as wasteful. This is the crux of the paradox; the quest for “friction-free” processes may be slowing the discovery of more fundamental changes that would have a much more profound impact on efficiency.

Our society views imagination with a strong sense of ambivalence. Humans are naturally short-term thinkers, and it takes an abundance of thoughtfulness to understand how a series of decisions made today will make a larger impact tomorrow.