by Alastair Scott | May 31, 2024 | Thought Leadership
As a business, we often have the onus put on us to fill in an RFI document for our software. For those of you lucky enough never to have encountered this task, it is a document built by a company to ensure they get the right specification for the product they are trying to buy, and that it does everything that is required.
In theory it is a great idea. Essentially, you are writing a list of what you want and then ensuring that the supplier delivers. What could go wrong? Several things, actually.
The first risk is that you learn an immense amount through the buying process. When you begin this process, you start with some key objectives – what are you looking to achieve and what specific functionality will help you to get there? But as you delve into different solutions, you learn the different capabilities of suppliers and the things they offer that you may not have thought to specify. So how do you adjust your list? Do you start the whole process again, with a new, longer list, or do you ignore what you have learnt?
It is likely that in this process, you keep adding to the functionality, and end up asking for everything that you might possibly want. But these lists do not necessarily bag you the best supplier. A company that does the basics excellently and has a great track record may be dumped for someone who skims the surface. The supplier might tick a box; they might say they do something, but knowing whether or not it really works is a pretty tough ask. That is where reputation matters more than anything else.
I think there are a couple of areas where it is hard to make this judgement; service and ease of use. I was talking to a new customer this week (which is what prompted me to write this article), who told me of a supplier that came top of their RFI process, but there was so little customer service that operational issues could never be resolved. Saying and doing customer service are two different things. And of course, how do you judge ease of use?
The easiest system to use is the one you use currently, and the further a system deviates from this the harder it will be to use. You therefore can’t really judge a system for a while. I call it the day 1 versus the day 21 test. If something is still frustrating at day 21, it is an issue.
I have saved my biggest point until last, and that is benefits. An RFI can articulate features, and test against them to a degree, as outlined above, but it can’t assess the benefits. The benefits are all around where you are on your journey, how willing you are to adopt best practise habits, and how your supplier can help change those habits. This isn’t normally in a document anywhere. There are plenty of well-documented examples of great new systems being introduced, only for the company to stick with the old system and work around the new system, creating even more work. On top of this, the departments further away from the change process are even harder to create the change in.
However, benefits are the only reason for the change in the first place, and all these benefits, in a perfect world, need to be set out, and articulated. Cost saving benefits are easy to create in theory, but practically driving out the cost is far harder. Saving 25% of a job probably saves no job at all. Sales growth is of course the easy way – I wish I had a pound for the number of times a supplier has articulated the benefits in extra pints sold per day!
So, am I saying that RFI processes should be abandoned? I think I am. I think we should try to move to a world where we have requests for benefits, with those benefits being articulated through a short number of key items.
For example, we moved from using Mailchimp within our restaurant business last year to using a hospitality-based system. It has taken some time to set up and get going, and we still have some way to go on getting all the automations set-up and optimised, but the benefits are really clear. We are now able to send out customer e-mails (yes – our audience still responds best to e-mail, and we get a 40% open rate) incredibly easily and frequently. Since we started, our growth rate has increased. As always in this industry, we have to be incredibly focused on the projects that grow sales or save cost.
by Alastair Scott | May 17, 2024 | Thought Leadership
As I journey around the industry, I am fascinated by who is successful and who is not. In particular, I love to see the success that single sites can have. My sister and her husband run a very successful single site near York (The Alice Hawthorn for those who know it – John is an amazing chef!) I was even more surprised when my sister said that she enjoyed reading my articles – and not just because she never compliments me! It is true that some people are just great single site operators – they have their own procedures and routines, and for the most part, tend to stick to them.
I have recently been talking to another single site operator quite close to me in Harrogate. They have no wish to be a multiple, either because they earn enough money, or are settled in how their lives work, hopefully it is both. As I observe single sites though, I find that their biggest challenge is how they avoid getting set in their ways, and how they seek out best practice.
Reading, attending conferences, and having a good network of similar local business is important, and should never be underestimated. So is using suppliers and even the ‘dirty’ word, consultants. Some of the above are free, and some cost money, whether that is time away from the business, or the cost of employing someone else.
The hard bit when you are a single site operator is challenging yourself to get better, to try and change, and try things that might not work. The danger is that slowly but surely you become less competitive and less profitable until it is too late and the cash to be brave has run out. And, sometimes, this should also happen right at the start of your journey.
I am constantly frustrated by newcomers to the industry who listen too much to their head chef, and run a menu and a cost structure that doesn’t work! These are probably two of the biggest risks for single site operators: going into a business with some key skill gaps and relying on the wrong people, and then having a successful business and not initiating enough change.
We want to help operators recognise where their operations may need to be adapted and show them the best ways to enact these adjustments. This is why we decided to launch an operational excellence programme on labour management for single sites. We are also keen to help facilitate more programmes on the subject matters that we are not experts in, because we understand the value of shared knowledge. We are constantly learning new ways to help operators to be their best and plan to continue doing so.
I really hope that we can help a nation of single site operators become better and better.
by Abby Henson | May 17, 2024 | Convenience Stores
Leading rota, people and payroll supplier, S4labour has announced its partnership with Bestway Retail Limited.
S4labour are now the preferred supplier to Bestway, which is comprised of over 3000 stores across the U.K. Operating under three fascia groups – Costcutter, Best-one and Bargain Booze, all Bestway stores will benefit from the labour and cost management tools, designed to save them time and money.
Leanne Matthews, Head of Central Operations at Bestway Retail, commented: “Bestway is excited to announce this partnership with S4labour. We are always striving for our retailers and forecourt operators to save more money and grow profits, and S4labour provides the tools needed to do just that.”
The end-to-end software streamlines all labour-related processes, providing retailers and forecourt operators with the right tools to optimise scheduling, timekeeping, and payroll.
Garry Craft, Managing Director of Retail at S4labour, commented: “This partnership with Bestway is a great milestone for S4labour. We are really be pleased to be the recommended software for thousands of retailers, helping them to manage all of their labour-related processes in a way that saves them time and helps them to grow sales. We have great momentum in the industry right now, with our Nisa strategic partnership last September, and now this. We are really proud to be working with the best in the industry.”
S4labour will be at the Bestway Retail Expo on Wednesday 15th May in Coventry. They can be found in the innovation area, ready to meet and discuss any questions regarding their time and money-saving tools.
James Legget, Operations Manager at Zola Ltd, commented: “The tools S4labour provide have helped us save 15 hours per store, per week in our staffing hours, and allowed us to accurately manage holiday and sick pay. As a result, we have already seen the payback from using the system.”
“The real advantage of having S4labour is it just takes care of everything – from staff rotas to the payroll systems. The investment into S4labour was well worth it because it saves me a lot of time and makes it all more accurate as well because people can see on a day-to-day basis what hours they’ve worked; what their holiday entitlement is – everyone just knows where they are.” – Peter Patel, Costcutter Retailer
by Abby Henson | May 14, 2024 | Sales Figures
Like-for-like sales were down 12.9% in April compared to the same month last year, the latest data from S4labour reveals.
Outside of London, sites saw a drop of 15.9%, whilst the capital saw a very slight uplift of 0.7% year-on-year. Across the country, dry-led venues saw a decline of 10.4% and wet-led sites witnessed a marginally larger decrease of 17.8% in comparison to last year.
For the months of March and April combined, year-on-year data showed that overall sales were down 1.9% in 2024, compared to the same two months in 2023. For the same periods, London sales were up 2.7% in 2024, but down 3% outside of the capital.
Chief Growth Officer at S4labour, Richard Hartley, commented: “With Easter falling earlier than usual this year at the end of March, last month’s sales were up by 11.6% compared to 2023. As expected, this meant that April’s like-for-likes would appear lower this year, hence the drop.”
by Alastair Scott | May 3, 2024 | Thought Leadership
I read an article in Propel recently on the lack of training in the hospitality sector. Research from the Economics Foundation suggests that spending on training has reduced by 35%, and that this is leading to a reduction in productivity.
I often find myself wanting to challenge perspectives on anything related to how our teams operate, but usually good judgement gets the better of me. In this case, I am not sure whether I want to challenge the article or put more colour on the detail. Either way, I hope it is ok to continue, and I won’t offend.
My first point is that we have had a revolution in the hospitality training environment over the last decade. Fifteen years ago, face-to-face training was the norm, and online training was a minority sport. This made training very expensive, and I suspect it was therefore done very sparingly. Now, online training is how nearly everyone works, particularly for the easier items to train. It has probably cut the cost of training by more than 35%, I would guess by nearer 90% for the same activity. So, our efficiency and productivity in this regard has improved substantially, and a reduction of 35% in total spend probably means we are doing much more training than we used to.
But we need to also consider what is being trained. Compliance courses are a necessity, and it is essential that people are trained to ensure they don’t hurt themselves or break the law. I think we are pretty good at that. I also think the training industry has been pretty good at developing further skills courses, be it wine knowledge or conflict management. I hope here our skills are much better, but I would still argue not good enough.
The article makes the attempt to link the lack of training to poor productivity growth, which of course, is of much more interest to me. At S4labour, we are seeing a massive increase in our requests for training. For the most part, perhaps even all, it is focused on productivity increases. I am also pleased to say that in the more complex world of labour management, it is mainly face-to-face, and in groups. Face-to-face means you know when you need to dig deeper or explain more because you haven’t gotten your point across, or that you can see in the body language that there is some level of resistance. Training in groups means that the team all learn from each other and develop best practices together.
Despite these initial efforts, I think it is fair to say that productivity improvement across the industry has been poor. We haven’t really embraced change in this area, and too many of us are relying on the ways we learned 30 years ago. Best practise is improving quickly and will accelerate further in the next few years.
It of course requires us to change what we have always done. It is a sobering fact that at least 25% of our total labour cost is wasted. At a time when every £1,000 counts, this is still a big opportunity for the industry, and I think it is time to set harder targets and help people become even better. Cutting out the waste through great analysis and good techniques, combined with great face–to–face training will get us a long way!
by Alastair Scott | Apr 19, 2024 | Thought Leadership
I love doing consultancy work. I find that the debate with other people really forces me to think, analyse and invent. And occasionally, it sparks a moment that I need to write down. Last week was one of those.
Historically, I have talked about ‘coach party’ rostering, which I thought up when I was at M&B, using it when we bought a load of pubs from Whitbread.
Coach party rostering was my response to those who always had an extra member of staff on incase a coach party arrived. It is the practice of a manager, or owner, who stands in as an extra pair of hands, incase service gets busy. Last week I renamed it +1 management.
Of course, we all know that this is a commercial disaster. Firstly, whoever comes in feels like they are working, when in reality, they aren’t. This just makes their week feel longer, unnecessarily. They should be working a shorter week, coming in only when required.
Secondly, it causes costs to mushroom. An extra 10 hours a day, or 70 hours a week, is not far off £50k a year down the drain. But even in our own pubs, it seems very easy to drift back to +1 management. Our teams seem to like having three instead of two front of house in quieter sessions. Why?
Is it because they can stop and chat? Is it because of the proverbial coach party? Or is because they like to have one on the bar, one wait staff and one food runner?
When I ask my own team, I can’t seem to get a straight answer, other than a repeated promise not to do it again.
I am conscious that my last article was on lowest common denominator management, and I am in mortal danger of wanting to do the same!
However, our root out of conundrums like this is threefold:
1 – Have a shift plan that ensures multi-tasking is part of how the shift is run – not just slack tasks, but also the key role of ‘float’.
2 – Teach management that having an extra person on, ‘just incase’, is poor management practice. It will make service worse, and you won’t recoup the costs.
3 – Make your labour costs visible. If you are just managing labour ratio, you will never see this detail, and will be oblivious to the problem, which is even worse.
So, I suppose I should be grateful. I can see the problem, and know what to do, and I now know the best way to explain it the team that need to deliver day in and day out.
