Blog · Board and management reporting · Foodservice distributors
How a foodservice distributor measures whether deliveries arrive in each kitchen's agreed window, from the route telematics or proof-of-delivery timestamps and the account's window: adherence per kitchen and per route, the deliveries that landed during service, the routes whose adherence fell, the kitchens whose order frequency dropped after a run of bad windows, and why window adherence is a retention measure before it is an operations one.
A kitchen's delivery arrives at 11:40, during lunch service, for the third time this month. The chef says nothing to the driver and orders less next month. The proof-of-delivery timestamps against the kitchen's window show the three deliveries in the week they happen. This guide sets out window adherence per kitchen and route, the during-service list, the route-or-driver split, and the retention association.
Per delivery:
In window if delivered time is within the kitchen's agreed window During service if delivered inside the kitchen's stated service hours
Per kitchen, per month:
Adherence = in-window deliveries ÷ deliveries During-service count
Per route and per driver:
Adherence, and out-of-window deliveries, to split the cause
Account and driver identifiers only.
every delivery has a delivered time, or is listed as unrecorded
Unrecorded deliveries are excluded from adherence with a count; a route with many is a proof-of-delivery process gap.
| Kitchen | Window | Deliveries | Adherence | During service | Spend/month | Route | Reading |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2207 | 07:00 to 10:00 | 20 | 65% | 3 | $9,400 | R-04 | At risk: three in service |
| 4471 | 06:00 to 09:00 | 12 | 100% | 0 | $6,100 | R-04 | Fine |
| 9034 | 08:00 to 11:00 | 22 | 82% | 1 | $3,200 | R-11 | Watch |
Kitchen 2207, on route R-04, has had three deliveries during lunch this month. Kitchen 4471 on the same route is at 100 percent, which points at sequencing: 2207 is late on the route.
| Route R-04 | Driver D-1 days | Driver D-2 days |
|---|---|---|
| Out-of-window at 2207 | 3 of 8 | 4 of 12 |
Both drivers, same kitchen: the route's sequence puts 2207 too late. Re-sequence.
| Kitchens, last two years | Order frequency change in the following 2 months |
|---|---|
| 3+ during-service deliveries in a month | −18% |
| None | +1% |
Stated as an association. It is why the list is worked in the week, not reviewed at the quarter.
Adherence per route only. The route is at 85 percent and one kitchen on it is at 65.
During-service not separated. An early delivery and a mid-service one are both out of window and not alike.
Window missing from the master. No measure. Derive, label, confirm.
Cause not split. The driver is blamed for the sequence.
Mapped once, the proof-of-delivery timestamps, the account master and the ledger produce adherence, the during-service list, the route-or-driver split and the association every week. Covirage builds this from the exports as they are. The foodservice page describes the setup, and the drop frequency guide covers the measure that a kitchen's order frequency drop shows up in first.
The account master's delivery instructions: a start and end time, or a rule such as before 10am. Where the master has none, the kitchen's own history of accepted delivery times gives a de facto window, labelled, and the account manager confirms it.
From the distributor's own history: kitchens with a stated number of out-of-window deliveries in a month, and their order frequency and spend in the following two months against the two before, compared to kitchens with none. It is an association, and it is usually strong enough to change how routes are sequenced.
The same route with different drivers on different days, or the same driver on different routes, separates the two. Out-of-window deliveries clustered on one route regardless of driver are sequencing; clustered on one driver regardless of route are the driver.