When we are tasked with a problem to solve, the natural approach is to focus directly on how the problem was dictated to you and not dive deeper into the problem statement. Often, this tunnel-vision approach can lead to issues elsewhere, particularly when it comes to multi-unit operators. This is not uncommon in bottleneck management, also known as the “theory of constraints” (TOC).
You will need to pardon my geek-talk, but as a seasoned industrial and systems engineer, I enjoy talking about the theory of constraints and get excited to apply it to foodservice. In a very simplified form, it focuses on relieving the so-called “weakest link in the chain” to increase the throughput of the system. The continuous improvement approach to TOC then leads one to move from one bottleneck onto the next and so on. The iterative process is sound and proven.
But what happens when an operator does not have the luxury of time to move from one constraint to the next? The iterative process can be timely and costly. The recommendation: take a more holistic approach to process design and apply sensitivity to the design.
In an oversimplification of foodservice operations, there are three major epochs to manage: pre-opening, service hours and post-closing. When an operator thinks about optimizing its business, it must analyze all three epochs together, not individually. Solely focusing on optimizing one area can have a ripple effect on other areas, and depending on how operations have been defined, the impact can be positive or negative.
A prime example comes to mind in the form of a question: What is better: to prep heavily to simplify service hours operations, or to maximize efficiency and have prep occur during service hours? The answer is it depends, which naturally leads to even more questions.
How much prep is necessary for proper operations? When does the peak period begin, relative to opening? How much prep is necessary prior to opening? How much prep can I complete and leave overnight?
The nature of these questions shows that operators cannot allow their tunnel vision to try optimizing only one area, i.e., pre-open, prep, service hours, etc. They need to take into account the ripple effect of making changes from one area to the other areas. A great question operators should ask themselves is: “Can I add more work to my lunch line cook that would allow me to delay the arrival of a pre-opening prep cook by one hour?”
The question in the previous concluding sentence has many layers. The lunch line cook needs to be there due to the foodservice concept being in service, therefore there is no additional labor. Conversely, delaying the arrival of a pre-opening team member has a direct impact on labor savings. There is no one set up to this equation, hence the challenge to readers is to look at their operations and assess whether their staffing for service can absorb some pre-opening hours.
Recently, I observed the operation of a legacy concept whose focus was to simplify the work of its line cooks by relying heavily on its prep operations. This ideology may have worked in the past, but like so many other concepts in the industry this one was experiencing declines in customer traffic, too. Labor allocated outside of hours of operation became precious, as they were considered “incremental” to service since the concept generated $0 in sales during these periods.
In the past, this concept opted to oversimplify operations for their peak periods, under the guise that it would generate enough volume, resulting in higher margins thus offsetting the extra expense during the pre-opening hours. Fast-forward to the reality of reduced traffic many operators are now facing, the balance among the three foodservice epochs is integral.
On a recent project, a burger and craft beer concept initially had a significant constraint at the grill caused by the way information flowed into the kitchen. Once constraint at the grill was fixed, the bottleneck moved down the production line to toppings. And when that was fixed, the bottleneck moved to assembly. When the assembly constraint was resolved, the constraint moved to expo. In between there were other constraints that were resolved such as fries and chicken strips and patties. As this example indicates, you must look at operations holistically when trying to solve challenges like these.
There is no one-size-fits-all approach to design. Now, more than ever, design is hypersensitive to the ebb-and-flow of traffic patterns. “Kaizen” and “Sprint” events still have their place in business, but the holistic approach permits operators to remain flexible to the volatility of customer behavior.
