Chapter 11 — Discussion Guide

1. Why does an industry full of intelligent, hard-working people compute its most important cost metric incorrectly? What to listen for: the honest answers are structural rather than about intelligence — counting is physical labor at eleven at night, the shortcut is available instantly from the invoices, nobody audits it, and over a full year the two methods converge so the error is never caught. Push toward the general principle: a measurement that is inconvenient and unaudited will be approximated, and the approximation will be defended. Then ask where else in a restaurant that pattern operates — good answers name comps, waste logs, and ticket times.

2. The cost card says \$8.52. The plate consumes \$9.94. Which number goes in the business plan, and is the difference a form of dishonesty? What to listen for: students should reach the distinction between a standard measure and a true one. Food cost percentage is defined to exclude labor precisely so it can be compared across restaurants and against benchmarks; a card that absorbed labor would be incomparable to everything. Strong answers arrive at the position the chapter takes: put \$8.52 in the plan, keep \$9.94 in your head, and manage to prime cost — which is exactly why prime cost exists. Watch for students who want to "fix" the card; ask them what their food cost percentage would then mean to a lender.

3. Portion control versus generosity. Where is the line, and who decides? What to listen for: this should get uncomfortable, and it should. The chapter's position is that portion control is a specification problem, not a discipline problem, and that a restaurant selling generosity must cost the generous portion and price it rather than police it in secret. Push students who frame over-portioning as an integrity issue — ask what they would do about a cook whose plates run heavy and whose tables are the happiest in the room. There is no clean answer, and finding that out is the point.

4. Case Study 2 argues that guests forgive a price increase but not a secret portion reduction. Is that true, or is it something restaurant people tell themselves? What to listen for: the strongest answers demand evidence and then design a way to get it — a staggered rollout, a repeat-visit-rate comparison, review-text analysis. The weaker ones assert. Then turn it: is there any restaurant where the opposite is true? (Yes — where the price point is the concept, e.g. a fixed-price lunch or a value menu, shrinking may genuinely be the lesser harm.) The real lesson is the case's closing rule: given two options with similar arithmetic, take the one you will be able to evaluate.

5. A consultant offers to cut your food cost by two points. What do you say? What to listen for: the first correct move is to ask how. Two points can come from better purchasing (good), tighter portions (depends), a mix shift toward cheap items (probably bad — it improved the ratio and cost \$137.20 in §11.1), deleting the ribeye (definitely bad — it deletes the best contributor), or raising prices (not a food-cost improvement at all). This question is the chapter's four failure modes in a single sentence, and it is a good end-of-session synthesis. Follow with: what would you rather they promised you? — the answer is contribution margin dollars, or prime cost.

6. Bellwether's plan says 30.0% food cost. The chapter's own arithmetic says 30.2%–30.7% is more likely. Should the plan change the number? What to listen for: run this one late. Arguments for changing it: a plan is an argument and an argument should be honest; a lender who finds the optimism will discount everything else. Arguments against: 30.0% is a target, and targets that are set to the expected outcome are not targets; the chapter's commitments (weekly counts, a 1.0-point threshold, costed specials) are exactly what would make 30.0% achievable, and writing 30.7% would concede before trying. The chapter's own move — hold the number, and state precisely what has to be true and what a miss costs in prime cost — is available but should not be handed to them. This question rehearses the judgment the capstone will ask for, and students who notice that a target and a forecast are different documents are reading very well.