In the last 15 years, I have worked on over 200 projects to determine ideal usage and ideal menu item prices. In candor, most firms lack the proper operations information to explore the ideal cost issue. While the technology has completely transformed the reporting environment, the lack of standard recipes, standard yields and standard production information is widespread.
At the very least, every operator should know the portion sizes for all top menu items. I always say: "Pretend you just hired me as a line cook. Where do I go to study the portion guidelines for the really popular stuff?" A surprising number of managers answer: "You need to ask the people your working with for the guidelines." Leaving key portion size information to informal word-of-mouth communication is a mistake.
Take your top 25 purchased items. For each item, create a yield sheet as follows:
Cost of purchased weight:
As purchased weight:
Primary purpose yield:
Secondary purpose yield:
Trim yield:
Bones yield:
Unusable weight:
The cost for both the primary purpose yield and secondary purpose yield depends on your ability to make use of the trim and bones. If you have no use for either trim or bones, do not give a dollar credit in the analysis. A conservative model would also give a zero credit for these weights. A more aggressive model would assign a credit for the trim and bones based on the actual cost of buying each from the butcher. Do not assign a credit for trim and bones using straight weight calculations.
Costing the primary purpose yield and the secondary purpose yield is at the heart of this analysis.
I was in the local Costco today and boneless ribsteaks were selling for $7.49 per pound. Recently, I had purchased a bonein rib roast for $4.99 per pound. My best guess on the trim level of both cuts made me happy I had made the buy at $4.99. The bonein roast looked like it was cut from a 109C and the boneless steaks looked like they were cut from a 110. The difference in weight is a ratio of 80% usable on the bonein. If you want a perfect 112 ribeye, 50% loss from a 110 is possible and you would pay up to $9.98 in my example.
Since I paid $21 for my 3-rib roast and I cut three thick rib steaks, my cost of $7 per steak was a second check. In deed, the steaks at Costco would have cost me $8.25 each.
Early in my consulting practice, I worked with a fantastic person with formal butcher training and lots of experience. He bought beef rib after carefully studying the various market options from 3 suppliers. His typical spec was 109D or "exports" as they are called. Occasionally, he would buy the 109 or 110. In his operation, he served both prime rib and rib steaks so he often purchased more than one cut. His butcher shop had all the proper equipment.
Some of the decisions he made would produce a savings of 10% to 12% for the same menu item during the same week. Since these menu items accounted for over 20% of his weekend business, these decisions put him at a big advantage to his competition. He always passed along the savings to his customers in the prime rib since this was a market priced special on his menu (offered only on the busiest nights).
In the years following this project, I observed many restaurants offering prime rib and rib steaks. Many operators offered prime rib on slow nights, bought the meat from a single supplier and always bought the same cut. Seeing the unserved leftovers in their walkins was my first red flag. The lack of serious yield analysis was the second red flag. Finally, the majority had no clue what the gross margin was on these very high cost menu items. It was no wonder they called for help.
An operation with poor forecasts, no formal yield data and a complete lack of competitive bidding in place can easily pay twice as much to serve the same menu item. The great reports now available show the variances clearly. Ironically, the majority of operators using an ideal usage report look at super high variance ingredients with suspicion. "This can't be right!" "What is this telling me?" and "How can you believe this stuff?" are common replies.
Click Here For More Information
Sabtu, 03 Juni 2006
Jumat, 26 Mei 2006
Menu Analysis - Decomposed
When I studied Finance in grad school, our textbook Managerial Finance by J. Fred Weston covered portfolio theory. In a chapter appendix, Dr. William Sharpe's Capital Asset Pricing Model was presented and the calculation of beta coefficients was the focus. In my corporate position, I used the CAPM to analyze operating margins of our hard dollar catering contracts in Sodexho Canada. You can find many applications for portfolio theory in everyday business.
Menu analysis lends itself to portfolio theory. Think of your menu as a portfolio of selections offered to customers. Today's POS systems provide lots of great data to analyze. Tracking menu item gross margin vs. total menu gross margin can be quite helpful. Imagine a popular menu item with a volatile ingredient like crab meat vs. another menu item which utilizes a price stable ingredient. CAPM would assign a high beta to the crab cakes.
My clients have some huge concerns when they start tinkering with their menus. One example of this concern: "If I drop this dog, I'm worried the few fans will go somewhere else and take their family with them to a competitor." Some fearlessly raise the price of coffee, iced tea, soda, and bottled water yet dread raising certain items over a particular threshold. Perhaps they can't imagine charging over $10 for an appetizer or over $20 for an entree.
Whether you choose to try CAPM, menu engineering or just use a gut feel, menu changes are huge events. Simple adjustments for inflation can send super price conscious patrons to the competition.
One of the best discussions I ever had regarding menu analysis took place with a person who never attended high school. He was very worried about raising his entree prices at dinner above $9.95. The year was 1993 and many of his competitors had made the move. We discussed the menus of area restaurants all day.
During our discussion, I mentioned one of the low cost competitors ($8.95 and below) seemed to be in decline. Their parking lot was spotty on peak nights and bare early in the week. The response: "Nobody knows why they go there!" We really tore this point up. The menu had zero focus. This restaurant served pizza, pasta, burgers, pita sandwiches, tacos, chicken fingers, 8 oz. steaks and fried shrimp. Simply stated, there wasn't a fad they didn't mimic.
While my client employed a strategy of a tightly controlled 40% food cost on a BBQ menu, this competing restaurant had no formal strategy. They simply added new menu items as eating habits changed. Watching the lines out the door waiting for a BBQ fix on a rainy Tuesday, I quickly converted to the focused menu camp. The competitor closed two years later.
No amount of mathematics can solve the riddle of the restaurant with no soul.
Menu analysis lends itself to portfolio theory. Think of your menu as a portfolio of selections offered to customers. Today's POS systems provide lots of great data to analyze. Tracking menu item gross margin vs. total menu gross margin can be quite helpful. Imagine a popular menu item with a volatile ingredient like crab meat vs. another menu item which utilizes a price stable ingredient. CAPM would assign a high beta to the crab cakes.
My clients have some huge concerns when they start tinkering with their menus. One example of this concern: "If I drop this dog, I'm worried the few fans will go somewhere else and take their family with them to a competitor." Some fearlessly raise the price of coffee, iced tea, soda, and bottled water yet dread raising certain items over a particular threshold. Perhaps they can't imagine charging over $10 for an appetizer or over $20 for an entree.
Whether you choose to try CAPM, menu engineering or just use a gut feel, menu changes are huge events. Simple adjustments for inflation can send super price conscious patrons to the competition.
One of the best discussions I ever had regarding menu analysis took place with a person who never attended high school. He was very worried about raising his entree prices at dinner above $9.95. The year was 1993 and many of his competitors had made the move. We discussed the menus of area restaurants all day.
During our discussion, I mentioned one of the low cost competitors ($8.95 and below) seemed to be in decline. Their parking lot was spotty on peak nights and bare early in the week. The response: "Nobody knows why they go there!" We really tore this point up. The menu had zero focus. This restaurant served pizza, pasta, burgers, pita sandwiches, tacos, chicken fingers, 8 oz. steaks and fried shrimp. Simply stated, there wasn't a fad they didn't mimic.
While my client employed a strategy of a tightly controlled 40% food cost on a BBQ menu, this competing restaurant had no formal strategy. They simply added new menu items as eating habits changed. Watching the lines out the door waiting for a BBQ fix on a rainy Tuesday, I quickly converted to the focused menu camp. The competitor closed two years later.
No amount of mathematics can solve the riddle of the restaurant with no soul.
Senin, 22 Mei 2006
Food Purchasing - Decomposed
Your purchasing decisions have the greatest impact on the food cost percentage. When I refer to purchasing, I do not mean expediting vendor orders. Often, poor forecasting can turn the purchasing function into a frenzied group of expeditors. The more time the purchasing team spends on follow up calls, the less time is available for vendor analysis, material standardization and negotiation.
Your purchasing director should have the time and resources necessary to perform the critical tasks of this function. The best purchasing directors are market savvy and have standard costs for all major items. These pros focus on tiny windows of market opportunity and make larger purchases when the conditions are favorable. Due to the perishable nature of many food items, they need to be completely aware of usage trends and near term forecasts.
I find the purchasing directors often have either a poor relationship with the executive chef or a phenomenal relationship. The great relationships produce the best results. These teams discuss upcoming demand and alternate specifications. The purchasing pros handle the supplier negotiations. The chef handles the menu and demand forecasts for key items.
In the manufacturing environment it is common to use an ABC stratification system. The "A" parts represent 10 to 15% of items and 70 to 75% of purchase volume. The "C" parts represent 70 to 75% of items and less than 10% of purchase volume. In the middle are the "B" parts. Typically, purchasing agents focus on the "A" parts and setup long term contracts with suppliers and manufacturers. A greater planning effort is devoted to the "A" parts.
Switching to our industry, I've found the top 25% of items will encompass a very large percentage of purchase volume. Depending on menu focus, their coverage varies from 60% to 90% of total purchases. If you study these items carefully, you will see three conditions develop.
The first condition will include items which seldom vary in price per pound or case. These items are plentiful, shelf stable and easier to monitor. Some items will vary depending on season and temporary weather conditions. Volatility is high when moving in and out of season. Finally, some items change in price constantly due to a variety of variables.
Within the top tier of items, often further stratification may be performed to isolate the top 10 or top 25 items. I would make an additional recommendation. Spend slightly less time on the items with steady price trends. Focus more efforts on the volatile items. Secondly, spend significant efforts on forecasts for items with very low shelf lives. Overstock of highly perishable items is to be avoided if at all possible.
A solid purchasing team with proper resources can make a major impact on your overall food cost percentage. It is possible to buy 10% less food for the same menu and sales level. For example, I have seen a company without a well managed purchase function drop from a 40% food cost percentage to a 36% figure. Similar results have been achieved by operators across industry segments.
A big question always comes up regarding the cost of such and effort. Most multi-unit groups have a well developed purchasing function since the numbers speak for themselves. Find the balance between the cost of improving purchasing results and the benefit using a simple formula.
Multiply your most recent 12 months of purchases by 10%. This result is the break even budget for a qualified purchasing director. Compare your result against HR market studies in your region.
A $3,000,000 volume of food sales with a 40% food cost percentage would justify an annual expenditure of $120,000 at break even. If you could hire a competent professional for $75,000, you would see a $45,000 benefit. That's a net benefit of 1.5% of sales. If your growing the concept, the return on investment will increase as your units increase since the benefit of purchasing efforts is multiplied by the group volume.
Click Here For More Information
Your purchasing director should have the time and resources necessary to perform the critical tasks of this function. The best purchasing directors are market savvy and have standard costs for all major items. These pros focus on tiny windows of market opportunity and make larger purchases when the conditions are favorable. Due to the perishable nature of many food items, they need to be completely aware of usage trends and near term forecasts.
I find the purchasing directors often have either a poor relationship with the executive chef or a phenomenal relationship. The great relationships produce the best results. These teams discuss upcoming demand and alternate specifications. The purchasing pros handle the supplier negotiations. The chef handles the menu and demand forecasts for key items.
In the manufacturing environment it is common to use an ABC stratification system. The "A" parts represent 10 to 15% of items and 70 to 75% of purchase volume. The "C" parts represent 70 to 75% of items and less than 10% of purchase volume. In the middle are the "B" parts. Typically, purchasing agents focus on the "A" parts and setup long term contracts with suppliers and manufacturers. A greater planning effort is devoted to the "A" parts.
Switching to our industry, I've found the top 25% of items will encompass a very large percentage of purchase volume. Depending on menu focus, their coverage varies from 60% to 90% of total purchases. If you study these items carefully, you will see three conditions develop.
The first condition will include items which seldom vary in price per pound or case. These items are plentiful, shelf stable and easier to monitor. Some items will vary depending on season and temporary weather conditions. Volatility is high when moving in and out of season. Finally, some items change in price constantly due to a variety of variables.
Within the top tier of items, often further stratification may be performed to isolate the top 10 or top 25 items. I would make an additional recommendation. Spend slightly less time on the items with steady price trends. Focus more efforts on the volatile items. Secondly, spend significant efforts on forecasts for items with very low shelf lives. Overstock of highly perishable items is to be avoided if at all possible.
A solid purchasing team with proper resources can make a major impact on your overall food cost percentage. It is possible to buy 10% less food for the same menu and sales level. For example, I have seen a company without a well managed purchase function drop from a 40% food cost percentage to a 36% figure. Similar results have been achieved by operators across industry segments.
A big question always comes up regarding the cost of such and effort. Most multi-unit groups have a well developed purchasing function since the numbers speak for themselves. Find the balance between the cost of improving purchasing results and the benefit using a simple formula.
Multiply your most recent 12 months of purchases by 10%. This result is the break even budget for a qualified purchasing director. Compare your result against HR market studies in your region.
A $3,000,000 volume of food sales with a 40% food cost percentage would justify an annual expenditure of $120,000 at break even. If you could hire a competent professional for $75,000, you would see a $45,000 benefit. That's a net benefit of 1.5% of sales. If your growing the concept, the return on investment will increase as your units increase since the benefit of purchasing efforts is multiplied by the group volume.
Click Here For More Information
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
