Sample result
Strategic Priorities Builder for Restaurants
The owner asked this:«Here is my list of 19 pending items. Tell me which three I focus on for the next 12 weeks and what I drop.»
① The triage matrix, with what the numbers gave away
Two rows of this table were not on the owner's list: the assistant added them because the figures give them away. Food cost sits at 34% and the menu has been untouched for eleven months.
| Pending item | Profit effect (1-5) | Cost to execute (1-5) | Serves the goal? | Rationale, money per month |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shift grid for location 2 outside lunch | 5 | 3 | Yes | 28% labor cost applied to low-occupancy hours: ~4,100,000 |
| Portion weights and a scale on the 12 highest-volume items | 5 | 2 | Yes | 2 points of food cost over 60% of sales: ~2,600,000 |
| Differentiated pricing on the delivery platform | 4 | 2 | Yes | The platform moves ~13% of sales; 6 points of difference: ~1,700,000 |
| (added) Menu mix review, untouched for 11 months | 4 | 3 | Yes | Cost drift not passed on across the 6 best sellers: ~1,900,000 |
| Wine list | 2 | 2 | Partly | Ticket +1.2% on the tables that order it: ~500,000 |
| Weekday breakfasts | 3 | 5 | Partly | A new line: it needs its own math before competing here |
| Replace the POS system | 2 | 5 | No | Zero a month, 11,000,000 of investment and 3 weeks of friction |
| Redesign the logo | 1 | 3 | No | No measurable effect on the year's goal |
| … 11 more pending items | Scored on the same yardstick |
SUPUESTO: profit effect was calculated with the contribution margin implied by the declared prime cost (62%). If the real margin were 5 points lower, every figure in the last column drops proportionally; the ORDER of the table does not change, but the chosen three would take 16 weeks to pay what they pay here in 12.
② The three, and the subtraction that pays for them
The three for the next 12 weeks
| # | Priority | Expected profit per month | First action, this Monday |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Shift grid for location 2 outside lunch | 4,100,000 | Pull sales by time band for the last 8 weeks |
| 2 | Portion weights and costing for the 12 highest-volume items | 2,600,000 | Weigh the Bandeja de la casa across three straight services |
| 3 | Differentiated pricing on the delivery platform | 1,700,000 | Compare the margin of a platform order against a dining-room one |
Together they are worth 8,400,000 a month, close to 3.9 points of margin on 214,000,000. The year's goal asks for 6 points in twelve months: these three bring two thirds of it in twelve weeks. The first ties with the second on money, but the second goes earlier in the order because portion weights are what fund the conversation with the platform.
What gets dropped so they fit
| Dropped | Where it goes | Frees up |
|---|---|---|
| Replacing the POS | Postponed with a date: re-enters when a third location is on the route | 2 weekly hours of the owner through the quarter |
| Logo redesign | Killed, and said out loud | 1 weekly hour of the owner and 4,500,000 |
| Weekday breakfasts | To the waiting list: re-enters once it has its own math | 5 weekly hours of the head chef |
| Answering the platform review by review | Delegated to the manager | 3 weekly hours of the owner |
The subtraction, in front of the owner: the three priorities ask 6 weekly hours of his. The sacrifices free exactly 6 —2 from the postponed POS, 1 from the logo, 3 from the delegated reviews— plus 5 of the head chef's, who carries priority 2. It ties at zero: that is why a fourth priority does not fit, and why these three fit the week the owner has and not the one he wishes he had.
The full example has 1 more part(s): you see them inside the library, with your account.