Write Menu$/$Managements Final Recommendations $($LAST PARAGRAPH$)$

$-$Continual assessments on consumer preferences & menu composition

monitor sales data & customer feedback to guide menu adjustments effectively

Regular performance reviews

enforcing or adding in regular performance reviews for all menu items within the restaurant $($all menus$)$

analyze data, cost margin, and customer feedback to see if the menu items are doing well, finding trends in the data OR opportunities of improvements or if any adjustments need to be made for better performance, operational & selling$-$wise $"$ By using following datas The first task of this analysis is to compare the CM data with the ABC data. Taking a look at both spreadsheets, we$$ve determined that out of all the classifications, the majority of the menu is composed of PLOWHORSES. Compared to most classifications, the benefit of these PLOWHORSES is that they are adjustable and a positive for the menu.

Now, starting the analysis and recommendations, the first classification that we don$$t want on a menu are DOGS. Any menu item that is a DOG, we want to eliminate completely. From this course, we know that DOG menu items are low popular $-$ low profitability menu items, meaning that they are the businesses most unnecessary expense. For such a classification, not only do they waste business money, they don$$t bring in a lot of revenue either. Take Arugula Pear Salad for instance. The PF on the CM data sheet is $0\mathrm{.}31$ and on the ABC sheet is $0\mathrm{.}46.$ From these numbers, it is clear that it is not doing well, operational and selling$-$wise, and as we already know from the $100$ items that were sold compared to the $229$ items of the Chopped Salad that were sold. Even if you take a look at the CM and OP$,$ you can tell that DOG menu items bring in fairly little. This idea of supremely low PF$,$ CM and OP applies to the rest of the DOG classified menu items as well. Knowing these data areas, it is clear to any management that these items are not needed compared to other items. The positive about DOG menu items is that, for this specific menu especially, there aren$$t too many and they are coming from menu categories with high variation.

We move along to PLOWHORSES. As we touched upon at the start, PLOWHORSES are good to have on the menu because of their potential for optimization. PLOWHORSES is that classification where they are high popular $-$ low profit items. What this means is that we have many options for optimizing their classifications to raise the profit. After looking through all the numbers on both data sheets, we pulled three menu items that are low PF items; Grilled Garden Burger, Cheeseburger, Chopped Salad. For Grilled Garden Burger, the CM PF was $0\mathrm{.}84$ with the ABC PF of $0\mathrm{.}41.$ For the Cheeseburger, the CM PF was $1\mathrm{.}18$ with the ABC PF of $0\mathrm{.}64.$ The last item, Chopped Salad, had a CM PF of $1\mathrm{.}09$ with an ABC PF of $0\mathrm{.}83.$ Just from these numbers, they are not all low or too high; most of them are in that range that we are looking for, however, for PLOWHORSES especially, we want to seek a way to optimize its already consistent performance. Before continuing, we need to understand this basic knowledge that the PF of any menu item should be between or close to $0\mathrm{.}9-1\mathrm{.}1$ in order to be considered a balanced item for the restaurant. Most restaurant managers$/$owners look for this PF range because it is considered the best.

Unlike DOG items though, we have some wiggle room with these PLOWHORSES. The first option is to slightly increase the item price. By doing this, we allow for higher revenue, higher profit to be made on all sides and we allow for a better item PF$.$ Most items, depending on the category, have room for variations of increase, meaning that it isn$$t at the highest price for that category. If we raise the price over time, little by little, we would be able to improve the PF of those menu items, along with the revenue, CM and OP of the business as well. The next option is doing an in$-$depth analysis on the ingredients, portions, and the overall recipe. By doing this type of analysis, we see where we can make changes; we can possibly change the sourcing of our ingredients, perhaps sourced from a vendor that is cheaper and more affordable. Another option is to decrease portion size slightly, however, by doing this, this can lead to a classification change because of the higher price $-$ decrease size ratio balance that is no longer there, in which we don$$t necessarily want to do unless that classification change is to a STAR.

Mentioning STAR, we move to this classification. For this, STAR items are the ones you want to spotlight the most. What this means is that you want to place these items more at the forefront where guests will see it clearly and know them well. STAR items are ones where you don$$t want to change them but keep them consistent. These are known, to the business, as $$Top Performers,$$ and through the name, it is clear that their impacts aren$$t mild. Now, for this project, we saw