Illustrative review
Busier lunches. Less left after costs.
What would a performance review actually tell you? This fictional café example shows how a headline sales increase can lead to a more useful question. The figures are invented; this is not a client result.
The owner’s question.
“Lunch feels busier, but we are not seeing much benefit. What should we look at?”
The comparison covers two four-week periods with the same number of opening days and the same lunch hours. Figures use a consistent tax basis. In this example, the sales, product-cost and labour records are assumed to have been checked first.
That gives us a reasonable starting comparison. It does not yet tell us why the change happened or what action would be sensible.
What the figures show.
Sales increased by £610, or 7.6%. Direct product costs also rose, so product contribution increased by only £156. Recorded labour increased by £300. After those two groups of costs, £144 less was left.
| Measure | Earlier period | Later period |
|---|---|---|
| Transactions | 1,000 | 1,050 |
| Net sales | £8,000 | £8,610 |
| Direct product costs | £2,560 | £3,014 |
| Product contribution | £5,440 | £5,596 |
| Product contribution margin | 68.0% | 65.0% |
| Recorded labour cost | £2,400 | £2,700 |
| Contribution less recorded labour | £3,040 | £2,896 |
The final line is not net profit. It excludes premises, utilities and other overheads, and may not include the owner’s time. Product costs include the waste recorded in this fictional example.
What needs checking.
The figures give us a focused question: what changed in the product costs and staffing behind lunch service?
Several explanations are possible. Customers may have bought a different mix of products. Supplier prices or portions may have changed. Extra labour might reflect more preparation, staff training or a temporary service issue.
The next checks would look at item-level sales and costs, how labour was allocated and whether any records were missing. The owner’s account of those weeks matters too: a special event or a change elsewhere in the business may explain part of the difference.
It would be premature to conclude that prices should rise or hours should be cut. The summary identifies where to look; the supporting evidence should guide the response.
A possible action to test.
Suppose the further checks suggested that an ingredient used in only a few lunch items was creating avoidable waste. A limited change to purchasing or the menu might be worth testing, depending on preparation needs and customer demand.
We would record starting stock, purchases, waste and sales for the affected items. We would then compare contribution alongside observations from service, allowing a suitable period and noting other changes.
The action would be specific, with someone responsible for it and a review date. The purpose is to learn whether it helps, without treating one unusually good or bad week as a settled answer.
What you would take away.
A useful finding sets out the evidence, explains its limits and gives you a practical next step. In this example, the action would be a defined test, not a promise of a particular saving.
The follow-up would review what was tried, what changed and how reliable the comparison is. You might keep the change, adjust it, stop it or gather better information.
No outcome is claimed in this example. It illustrates the judgement behind the work. A Hospitality Performance Review normally brings together three to five meaningful findings within the agreed scope, with a report, action plan and discussion.