# RESTAURANT GOODS RECEIVING — PROCESS FRICTION ANALYSIS ## 1. PROCESS SNAPSHOT - **Purpose:** Receive deliveries accurately and maintain reliable purchasing information. - **Actors:** Chef, two cooks, purchasing manager and suppliers. - **Main stages:** Delivery arrives → quantity check → discrepancies noted → goods stored → information entered into Excel → purchasing review. - **Desired outcome:** Accurate receiving with minimal disruption to service. - **Known volume:** Approximately 20 deliveries per week. - **Tools:** Delivery notes, paper forms, phone and Excel. - **Constraint:** Long administrative tasks cannot interrupt service. ## 2. TOP FRICTIONS ### 1. Duplicate recording - **Evidence:** Information is written on paper and later entered into Excel. - **Effect:** The same information is processed more than once. - **Confidence:** High ### 2. Discrepancies discovered after storage - **Evidence:** Some discrepancies are noticed only after goods are stored. - **Effect:** Exception handling becomes harder and may require additional searching or movement. - **Confidence:** High ### 3. Supplier exception handling by phone - **Evidence:** The chef usually contacts the supplier by phone when an item is missing. - **Effect:** Resolving exceptions depends on manual communication. - **Confidence:** Medium ## 3. BOTTLENECK **Most likely bottleneck:** The receiving-to-record handoff. If discrepancies are noticed after storage and information is entered later, the process carries avoidable delay and duplicate work. **Uncertainty:** The case does not provide enough time data to determine whether receiving, storage or exception resolution consumes most capacity. ## 4. HIDDEN WORK ### Duplicate data entry - **Evidence:** Paper records are later entered into Excel. - **Effect:** Adds administrative work after the operational event. - **Confidence:** High ### Manual supplier follow-up - **Evidence:** Missing items are handled by phone. - **Effect:** Exception resolution creates additional coordination work. - **Confidence:** Medium ## 5. COST EXPOSURE ### WHAT WE KNOW - Approximately 20 deliveries per week. ### WHAT IS MISSING - Average receiving time. - Time spent entering records. - Number of discrepancies. - Time spent resolving discrepancies. - Labour cost by role. ### HOW TO MEASURE IT Track one representative week: - receiving time per delivery; - data-entry time; - discrepancy rate; - discrepancy-resolution time. ### WHY IT MATTERS This would show whether the main opportunity is faster receiving, reduced re-entry or better discrepancy detection. **No monetary estimate is produced.** ## 6. ROOT-CAUSE HYPOTHESES ### Hypothesis 1 Duplicate information handling is contributing to administrative workload. - **Supporting evidence:** Paper first, Excel later. - **Confidence:** High. - **How to verify:** Time the paper-to-Excel step for one week. ### Hypothesis 2 Discrepancies are detected too late in the flow. - **Supporting evidence:** Some are discovered after storage. - **Confidence:** High. - **How to verify:** Record when discrepancies are detected relative to receipt. ## 7. IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES | Action | Category | Expected impact | Effort | Dependencies | Risk | |---|---|---|---|---|---| | Capture discrepancy information at receipt | ELIMINATE | High | Low/Medium | Simple receiving standard | Low | | Remove duplicate paper-to-Excel entry where possible | SIMPLIFY | High | Medium | Suitable recording method | Medium | | Automate supplier exception workflow only after receiving data is reliable | AUTOMATE | Medium | Medium | Stable data capture | Medium | ## 8. IMPACT / EFFORT PRIORITY ### 1. Capture discrepancies at receipt - **Impact:** HIGH - **Effort:** LOW/MEDIUM - **Risk:** LOW - **Reason:** It addresses the late-discovery problem directly. ### 2. Remove duplicate recording - **Impact:** HIGH - **Effort:** MEDIUM - **Risk:** MEDIUM - **Reason:** It attacks administrative work that adds no new operational value. ### 3. Measure receiving time - **Impact:** MEDIUM - **Effort:** LOW - **Risk:** LOW - **Reason:** It establishes which part of the flow deserves further investment. ## 9. FIRST 3 ACTIONS 1. **Record discrepancies at the point of receipt.** Reason: prevent late discovery after storage. Evidence/result expected: clearer timing and location of discrepancies. 2. **Measure paper and Excel handling time for one week.** Reason: quantify duplicate effort. Evidence/result expected: actual time spent on re-entry. 3. **Review the receiving flow during service pressure.** Reason: any solution must respect the no-long-administration constraint. Evidence/result expected: a feasible shorter receiving routine. ## 10. WHAT NOT TO AUTOMATE **Do not introduce a complex automation layer that slows receiving during service.** Simplify the receiving step first. ## 11. EVIDENCE LEDGER | Finding | Type | Evidence from user input | |---|---|---| | 20 deliveries/week | FACT | Supplied volume | | Duplicate paper/Excel entry | FACT | Supplied workflow | | Late discrepancy detection | FACT | Supplied problem | | Supplier phone handling | FACT | Supplied workflow | | Main cost not quantified | FACT | No time or labour-cost data | ## 12. EXECUTIVE DIAGNOSIS - **Biggest source of friction:** Duplicate recording and late discrepancy detection. - **Most likely bottleneck:** Receiving-to-record handoff. - **Highest-value improvement:** Capture and resolve discrepancies at receipt while simplifying recording. - **Biggest uncertainty:** Actual time consumed by receipt versus re-entry. - **Next evidence to collect:** Receiving time, data-entry time, discrepancy rate. - **Overall confidence:** HIGH — the workflow clearly shows duplicate information handling and late exception detection, but the economic impact requires measurement.