Lessons on Efficiency from Starbucks

Originally Published 2009-01-18 13:42:19

The other day I purchased an espresso from Starbucks and then went right next door to purchase a sandwich from a Togo's franchise. It occurred to me, while waiting 6-9 minutes to complete my sandwich transaction but barely a minute for my coffee, that Starbucks has a vastly superior queuing system.

Starbucks' system touches the customer twice. There are two queues -- two wait states -- but the queues are completely disconnected from one another. This allows resources to be distributed more efficiently to the two queues. This could be because of employee specialization -- perhaps one employee is a whiz at juggling cups while another can make change in her head while half-asleep. Or, more duplicate-able and scale-able, one can simply apply an additional employee to either barista or cashier duties. So, when there are 15 empty cups awaiting caffeine juice and only one person in line, the third person can start steaming milk. When the roles are reverse and there are only two empty cups but fifteen in line, a second cashier can be manned.

Compare this with the system at Togo's. There is one line serviced by 1-4 employees. A customer is handled, from start to finish, by the single point of contact. Occasionally, they'll adjust their system, having a manager handle cash for everyone while 1-4 employees focus on sandwich making. Both approaches are inferior to the two-queue system because they are serial. Even when a dedicated cashier is present, cash never changes hand until the sandwich making process is almost complete. So one large order upsets the entire system. The customer experience is further compromised by simply forcing the customer to stand in line, focusing on the wait and any inefficiencies perceived, rather than socialize, make a call, or otherwise spend their time in a more productive (or at least less negatively focused) manner.

Now, granted, a sandwich takes longer to prepare, generally speaking, than your daily stimulant of steamed milk fortified bliss. But that should make the need for disconnected queueing -- or, in geekspeak, "asynchronous messaging" -- even more impactful, if not downright necessary. Starbucks's superior system allows more production per employee. It, point blank, increases productivity -- generally considered by all to be the single biggest contributing factor to raising the standard of living of a population. In other words, creating long term wealth. Go look up the sales per employee of Starbucks and compare it with any retail food service company that uses the single queue model. I haven't looked them up, but I predict that Starbucks will report roughly double the sales per employee.

Maybe another day I'll put together a list just to prove it...

(Incidentally, I propose that this is one of the reasons why email is more efficient than a phone call. A phone call is serial -- two parties must connect at exactly the same time, whereas with email, the two interactions are disconnected. Asynchronous messaging, once again.)