When looking over the results of the 2007 Quick Serve Performance Study, the old adage ‘the more things change the more they stay the same’ comes to mind.  The speed category is almost identical to several of the prior years’ results.  And, as is also the case most years, there was quite a bit of movement in the accuracy category…except of course with Chick-Fil-A, which once again finished atop the rankings.

So what has changed?  A better question might be; ‘What hasn’t?’  During 2007 we saw continued advancements and/or penetration of available technology for managing several aspects of the drive-thru.  Advances included (but are not limited to):

• The emergence of contactless payment card acceptance as seen at Arby’s and McDonald’s, which allow a customer to process a card payment almost instantaneously with the tap of his/her card on a reader rather than digging for cash and waiting for change, or processing via the more customary but slightly clumsier ‘card swipe’. 
• Continued advancements in POS communications, and particularly digital menu and Customer Order Display units that now allow topical, timely messaging to customers.
• Digital sound systems for improved communications between drive-thru customers and the restaurant, thus reducing the frequency of misunderstood order information, and/or the need to use valuable time to repeat order related information unnecessarily. 
• Improvements in demand forecasting, thus allowing restaurants to ‘get a jump on’ production.

Operational and communication system changes are likely to continue at this rapid pace due to the acceleration of technological advancements.  By now you may be thinking that with all of the advancements and the direction of technology, your favorite restaurant is soon going to know what you want to order before you do, and quite frankly that’s not too far from the truth.  With the technology behind loyalty card programs and electronic payment acceptance, it is not that far of a stretch before each restaurant will be able to forecast your order based on historical data in a profile developed based on your past ordering habits, all before you even reach the speaker.

So with all that change, what has happened in the speed of service category?  As was the case in 2006, four of the prior year’s top five again finished in the top five this year.  And last year’s fifth place brand, Burger King, placed sixth in 2007.  Wendy’s is back on top again, with only about 3 seconds difference in its average service time over the past three years (2007 is 138.2 average seconds per vehicle, 2006 was 135.1, and 2005 was 135.7).  Checkers average service time increased from its 2006 mark, but was still good enough to place the brand second (152.5).  Taco Bell (163.1) and McDonald’s (166.6) again finished as third and fourth fastest respectively.  The one change in the top five that we see this year is Long John Silver’s moving up to fifth, pushing Burger King back one slot to number six. 

When discussing average service speed, I cannot stress enough the importance that the average number of vehicles in line makes.  This metric ultimately impacts throughput, which can most easily be described as the number of vehicles a restaurant can actually process during any given period of time – generally an hour.  As the restaurant gets busier, the average service time increases.  A natural assumption is to think “Of course, because the line is longer”, but remember that average service time in our study is defined as the time from when the test vehicle stops at the order point (speaker) to when it has received its entire order (including change), and is free to leave.  As such, the wait in line has been factored out, and the increase we consistently see in average service times as each restaurant gets busier is due primarily to the operational stress of consistently fulfilling multiple orders throughout a prolonged period. 

To that point, consider that the national average (i.e. the average of all service speed measurements included in the entire study) when 0-2 other vehicles were in line upon the researcher’s entry into it was 182.6 seconds.  The average service speed when 3-5 vehicles were in line, however, jumped to 258.3 seconds – over a minute longer!  And when 6 or more vehicles were in line the average was nearly 100 seconds per vehicle longer, at 282.2 seconds. 

With this in mind, consider the implications at Chick-Fil-A, where the average number of vehicles in line during our study was 3.42, as compared to a national average of 1.43, and a low of .55 at Church’s.  Yet Chick-Fil-A still finished as the 10^th fastest brand this year.  Similarly, McDonald’s, this years’ second busiest chain by that standard and the only other brand with an average of more than 2 other vehicles in line, finished 4^th in speed despite a 2.54 average for other vehicles in line. 

Although there are other complicating factors, such as the number of vehicles that can be ‘stacked’ between the order point and the pick-up window, a simplistic view of this metric tells us that Chick-Fil-A and McDonald’s are able to service as many as double the number of customers in less time than most of the other brands.  Other consistently strong speed of service performers like Taco Bell, Burger King, Wendy’s and Arby’s, are all also typically amongst the busiest restaurants based on our study data.  The financial implications to franchisees or prospective franchisees of this throughput capacity should not be overlooked.

The overall average when combining results of all chains included in this study was 200.1 seconds per vehicle, up slightly from 198.5 seconds in 2006, and 193.2 seconds in 2005.  Why the slight increase despite the new technologies discussed above?  Perhaps it’s the increase in average number of other vehicles in line, which went from 1.37 last year to 1.43 in 2007.  To process more customers in essentially the same amount of time necessarily means more efficient order fulfillment by the restaurants. 

Whataburger, which finished 1^st in last year’s Study (98.1%) and 2^nd in 2005 on order accuracy, fell to 8^th this year (90.9%) in that category.  Chick-fil-A, which was virtually tied for first given the sample size and margin of error at just a hundredth of a percentage point behind Whataburger in 2006, finished alone at the top of order accuracy this year, at 95.2%.  Chick-Fil-A in order accuracy, like Wendy’s in the speed of service category, has clearly demonstrated over the years that its first place finishes are no fluke.  Krystal Burger, also consistently near the top in the order accuracy category, finished 2^nd in this year’s study at 94.6%.

Historically there has been little difference between large groupings of chains when it comes to accuracy.  Statistically this means that to the average consumer, there’s really no perceptible difference in performance.  This is the case again this year, as just over 1% difference in order fulfillment effectiveness separated six different brands. 

It is important to note (see methodology statement) that every order placed for this study includes one special request.  Since not every customer on a typical day makes a special request to his/her order, it is a relatively safe assumption that actual accuracy performance at each brand is slightly better than our metrics would indicate. 

Overall the average percentage of accurate orders received by researcher’s conducting this study was 89.3% in 2007, which is a slight decrease from the 91.3% recorded in 2005 and again in 2006.  The spread between the top performer and bottom is very similar – 14.9% difference between top performer Chick-Fil-A and A&W in 2007 versus the 14.7% that separated Whataburger and Bojangle’s in 2006.  The decrease in overall performance for the industry appears to be just that, an overall decrease in accuracy.  The top performer mark fell from 98.1% in 2006 to 95.2% in 2007, while the least accurate brand also fell from the 83.4% 2006, to 80.3% this year. 

Movement within the accuracy rankings has been apparent each year, and 2007 is no exception.  A significant reason for dramatic appearing movement within the rankings for certain brands each year was described above, where a slight change in performance translates to a potentially large change in the relative rankings.  In 2007, Krystal improved to 2^nd from 10^th, and Bojangle’s rose all the way to 3^rd from 25^th.  Burger King improved from 13^th to 5^th and Hardee’s from 18^th to 6^th.  Two other newcomers to this years’ top 10 included Checkers, which rose from 24^th to 9^th (is this improvement in accuracy related to the increase in average service speed?), and McDonald’s, which improved to 10^th from 16^th in 2007.

Interestingly, three of the top four finishers in order accuracy were also the top three in speaker clarity, and 4 of the top 5 were top ten in speaker clarity.

In 2006 we introduced a ‘friendliness’ chart, which broke out different elements of what is generally believed to lead to a consumer’s overall perception of whether or not s/he received pleasant service.  Those criteria include whether or not the associate said please or thank-you, and whether or not s/he smiled, made eye contact, or had an overall pleasant demeanor. 

Given the recent increase in attention that customer service has received, particularly in the QSR environment, it is surprising that in less than 35% of the interactions during this study, the associate said “please” at the pay window when asking for payment.  Taco John’s employees clearly led the way with this hospitality, as nearly 61% of its employees said please, versus the next most frequent occurrences of 45% at McDonald’s, and 42% at Burger King and White Castle.  Taco John’s employees also thanked customers most consistently, as nearly 92% of its customers were thanked, versus a national average of 77.6%.  Chick-Fil-A associates most frequently offered a smile (84.1% versus national average of 61.7%), while Krystal employees most frequently made eye contact (94% versus national average of 82%).  Krystal employees also most frequently left the researcher with an impression of an overall pleasant demeanor, which is the most subjective assessment included in the friendliness charts.  Pleasant demeanor is a difficult attribute to measure because it not only includes all of the aforementioned criteria, but also issues like tone of voice and body language.  More importantly, however, there is no way to balance several other difficult to measure attributes such as the researchers’ expectations and past experiences, all of which lead to ones overall ‘feel’ for the interaction, and thus impression of overall demeanor.

There are some fundamental rules in research that allow you to arrive at conclusions with a fair degree of confidence, even when you cannot control all of the variables that may ‘clutter’ results.  One of those rules is to look for consistency.  In looking at the body of work over the years it’s becoming more and more apparent that those brands that consistently finish in the top of the rankings in this study are there for a reason – they are well managed organizations that measure performance, and then aggressively address opportunities for improvement based on thorough research.  Through all the changes in technology and the industry’s environment, we still see the leading chains at the top of our charts, year after year.