One counting standard across a chain

When a chain has several shops it is natural to want to compare their count results: which one has more shortages, which one is better run? But if every shop counts in its own way, the comparison is deceptive. One shop recounts every difference and another does not. In one the count sheet shows the booked quantity and in another it does not. The result is that a difference shows the counting method, not the shop's real state. One common rule makes the numbers truly comparable.

Why the method must be the same

An example. Suppose shop A counted 4,200 positions and found a difference in 63 of them, or 1.5 per cent. Shop B had a difference in 12 of 3,100 positions, or 0.4 per cent. At first sight B looks better. But in B the positions with differences were not recounted, while in A each difference was checked a second time. Had B been checked in the same way, more differences would probably have turned up. Such a comparison is no basis for reward or blame. Only when the method is the same does a difference between shops mean anything.

What the standard contains

The standard is not a long document but a few clear rules:

1. The cut-off: when and how it is set (the till, delivery documents, the last receipt).
2. Zone names and numbering: the same logic in every shop, for example entrance, till, walls, stockroom.
3. The form of the count sheet: the same columns, the same order, with the booked quantity hidden.
4. The recount rule: which differences get recounted. For example, any difference on expensive goods and, on cheap goods, only those above a set percentage.
5. Units and codes: goods kept under one name and in one unit.
6. Roles: the coordinator, the pairs, the accountant, and who takes the final decision.
7. The result format: one Excel template, so the results of all branches gather in a single file.

The fifth item is the one most often overlooked. If the same product is called "Flour 50 kg" in one shop and "Flour (bag)" in another, the branch results cannot be gathered into one table. Before the count, check the common product codes and make sure the same code is used even for goods moved between branches.

One page and one pilot

Try to fit the standard on one page. Nobody reads a long manual, but a checklist lies on the table on count day. Test it first in one shop: note what took a lot of time, where the work stalled and which item was unclear. Then correct it and send it to the other shops. Train each branch coordinator once with a short briefing, and make the training the same everywhere too. Then shops in Tashkent and in the regions all work from the same page.

What can be compared

With one rule, these indicators become meaningful:

• the share of positions with a difference (of all positions);
• the value of the difference in so'm and its ratio to turnover, for example as a percentage of monthly sales;
• the recount share: how many differences disappeared at the second count;
• how many positions one person counts in an hour;
• the total time the count took.

The difference in so'm shows the real size of the shortage, while the share of positions shows the quality of order. If the share of differences that disappear at the recount is large, the quality of the first count is low and the team needs retraining.

Checks and rotation

To control the quality of counting, run a small check in every shop: an outsider recounts fifty random positions from the zones already counted. If the result does not meet the standard, the counting routine is taught again in that shop. Do not bunch the branch counts into one day: when a central coordinator sends the team round in turn, the same people repeat the same method everywhere. Enter the count days in the yearly calendar and compare results with the previous period.

Conclusion

One common rule lets you compare results with one another and helps you improve the method. The Pereuchet team counts several shops in the same way, hands over the results in one form and prepares them for comparison shop by shop.