Help best way to describe this

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
imagine a scenario that you own 100 shops. in every shop youd like them to all buy their equipment from the same place. the importance behind it is to ensure everywhere is the same.
you have a procurement and logistics setup that the shops could use, but they dont have to use it.

the problem is some shops would rather buy from other places and so they are not using equipment which is the same as everywhere else.

am i right in thinking this would be ensuring 'consistency' to want everyone to buy from the same place? if so, does anyone know of some material that shows the importance of consistency like this?
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
I take it these shops will all be far away from each other?
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
if you like, it would not impact the problem. ive used shops just as an example.

the idea behind the consistency would at a technical level. everywhere has the same equipment, so technically it would all function the same and could all be serviced by the same company.

as it stands, there isnt a need for consistency but i am trying to form an argument that consistency would help solve a problem/reduce problems.
 

Chronictank

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
10,133
am i right in thinking this would be ensuring 'consistency' to want everyone to buy from the same place? if so, does anyone know of some material that shows the importance of consistency like this?
They should be buying from a list of suppliers you have provided, in order to get on the list the supplier has to go through a tendering process which evaluates its performance based on points you think are relevant.
The evaluation has to be transparent and the same criteria needs to be applied to all the suppliers, usually helps to use a points system as the supplier is well within their rights to ask what the criteria used in deciding is

This is to ensure that nothing dodgey has happened behind the scenes such as money under the table to influence the choice, it also provides a justification to your shops to why a particular supplier is used over the others
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
They should be buying from a list of suppliers you have provided, in order to get on the list the supplier has to go through a tendering process which evaluates its performance based on points you think are relevant.
The evaluation has to be transparent and the same criteria needs to be applied to all the suppliers, usually helps to use a points system as the supplier is well within their rights to ask what the criteria used in deciding is

This is to ensure that nothing dodgey has happened behind the scenes such as money under the table to influence the choice, it also provides a justification to your shops to why a particular supplier is used over the others

aye im aware of this. the place in question has its own procurement 'agency' you could call it, it is part of the organisation. but this organisation does not have to use the agency, they can use other specialist procurement 'agencies' which provide the same types of equipment but by other manufacturers.

what i would like to argue is that it could reduce problems or minimise risks if all the 'shops' used a single agency. as it is, i dont know if there is expert opinions out there already about consistency like this. so im wondering if i am looking for the right thing.
 

Marc

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 28, 2003
Messages
11,094
well surely the biggest risk of just using one supplier is if they go bust, you are up shit creak until you can sort out another supplier. If this takes time (which it will, to work up a decent credit level etc) your customers will go elsewhere in the meantime and may not return.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
well surely the biggest risk of just using one supplier is if they go bust, you are up shit creak until you can sort out another supplier. If this takes time (which it will, to work up a decent credit level etc) your customers will go elsewhere in the meantime and may not return.

were talking more about million £ international specialist companies and lets say these shops are worth millions too. so we can say no one will go bust or be left in shit creek etc. each shop has its own budget to buy what it needs but can use a variety of procurement agencies. my only problem with that is the lack of consistency in equipment. my problem there is trying to find arguments either way for consistency in this area. but also, am i using the right terms here?

yeh russell, i think ive got a lead to follow. ive already found some info but i really need info on the importance of being consistant, thats if there is any.
basically my 'shops' have an internal agency with a specific supplier but ive also found 2 other agencies with other suppliers for the same thing.
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
Have done something similar with IT equipment at an old company what won it for us in the end was centralised maintenance contract and staff training. Staff can move between sites with the same equipment with no training if they have to learn new gear you get down time.
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
McDonalds is a perfect example of all the restaurants using the same materials for cooking and everything else
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
McDonalds is a perfect example of all the restaurants using the same materials for cooking and everything else

Country dependent though, have to say.

I think the ingredients in the US and finland differ atleast in the "fresh veg" department. Also meat comes from local sources i think.

Not 100% sure though.
 

- English -

Resident Freddy
Joined
Apr 7, 2004
Messages
5,263
i guess it depends how wide spread were talking about. Food industry isn't going to order food from America and vice versa just so its from the same place. However equipment maybe a different scenario.
 

Sparx

Cheeky Fucknugget
Joined
Sep 30, 2005
Messages
8,059
Not just that tho, all the friers come from the same places etc. Every restaurant is built the same way and can be maintained the same etc
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
good points sparx and soze. perhaps i can find some literature by mcdonalds about why they do it, which is really what im after.

literature on why consistency is important or how consistency makes no difference.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Did anyone mention massive bulk purchasing yet?

Surely a good reason.

If you buy in bulk, you get cheap food for a month/person.
If you buy TONS in bulk, you'll surely save a LOT more.

McDonalds might buy a storage full at once and get a great discount of it.

Also concistency adds to market value as every person everywhere knows exactly what they get when they walk into a MaccyD. This brings more customers by default, especially in "shadier" locations.

A MaccyD is always a MaccyD, no matter where you go, and that comfort is a "homely" feel that brings more customers.

Ever had a bad MaccyD and never eaten at a MaccyD again? It could be that if one MaccyD bought other stuff, they couldn't keep taps on the taste and preference of customers.
 

tris-

Failed Geordie and Parmothief
Joined
Jan 2, 2004
Messages
15,260
its not really about bulk tohtori, though thats a good point too.

its more just about everywhere using equipment from the same source.
i would like to argue that the consistency would reduce the chances of problems arising.

it may be possible that within these 'shops', the sub departments are again using different sources for the same types of equipment. so even locally there could be a problem with knowledge of using it. not 100% on that yet though.

maybe it would work better if i looked at what problems inconsistency would cause, rather than what problems does consistency reduce.
mental note!
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Oh yeah, same cleaning methods, same principles, always same answer to same problems.

Everything is so known and well thought out, with exact equipment, that training/problem solving/other stuff can be done anywhere, anytime, as long as the shops have kept to the standards.

Same as MaccyD customers have.

And yes, it's MUCH easier to show what would go tits up :D
 

Bugz

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
7,297
Did anyone mention massive bulk purchasing yet?

Surely a good reason.

If you buy in bulk, you get cheap food for a month/person.
If you buy TONS in bulk, you'll surely save a LOT more.

McDonalds might buy a storage full at once and get a great discount of it.

That is formerly known as economics of scale but works on the principle that all costs associated with keeping and transporting the extra produce purchased is less than that of the discount gained through economies of scale.

McDonalds will no doubt definitely work at the balance between the two; keeping storage costs low whilst maintaining an efficient economics of scale.

As for consistency across a wide range of stores. I think the viability of it depends on factors such as distance, and the inevitable fuel prices, the labour associated w/ the distribution of these items, the rate at which those items(s) can be churned out and the links a company has with distributors.

McDonald's arguably has some of the greatest business links in the country (maybe even the world?). Furthermore, it is also a massive company, meaning that dictation by the supplier cannot occur too much.

Consistency is subject to market powers, market size, market share, supplier share etc. etc.

Doesn't really answer Tris' question directly though :)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom