Margin Resolve Book a 15-Minute Demo

Customer story

Tim Hortons

One standard, checked the same way everywhere

Brand-standard checks were done on paper and typed up later, if at all. Every site interpreted the standard a little differently, findings were emailed round, and nobody could compare one location against another. Today every site runs the same scored checklist — and a failed check becomes a job with a name on it.

Sector
Food service, multi-site
Before
Paper checklists, typed up later
Now
Margin Resolve
Scale
48 sites

The audit was never the problem

Doing the inspection was never the hard part. People walked the site and filled the form. What happened to the findings afterwards was the problem — and it broke in three places at once.

Every site scored differently

The same standard was interpreted a little differently at every location, and the paper form gave no way to enforce consistency. Two sites could record the same result and mean entirely different things by it, so the numbers could not be compared or trusted.

Findings had no owner

A failed check was written down, emailed on, and then depended on somebody remembering. There was no assignee, no due date and no thread back to the audit that raised it — so the same finding reappeared at the next visit.

Nothing tied a failure to the equipment

A check might record that a fridge failed, but nothing connected that result to the fridge itself. There was no way to ask which equipment failed most often or at which sites, so nothing preventive was ever scheduled off the back of an inspection.

What changed

The team still walks the same sites and answers the same questions. The difference is what the system does with the answers.

  • Every site runs one scored checklist built centrally, weighted where it matters, so results from any location can be compared directly.
  • Every check is tied to a location and an asset, so a failure builds a history against the equipment behind it rather than against a filename.
  • A failed check raises a job. It gets an owner, a due date and a link back to the audit that found it — and where the same asset keeps failing, it schedules the service that stops it.

The scores went up because people could see them

The biggest change was not the audit itself — it was that every location could finally see where it stood against every other one, on the same scale. Repeat findings dropped because a failed check stopped being a line in a report and started being somebody’s job.

94%

Average brand-standard score, up from 71%

100%

Of failed checks that now raise a corrective action

41%

Fewer repeat findings year on year

“The scores went up because people could finally see where they stood. And the repeat findings dropped because a failed check now becomes a job, not a line in a report.”
Operations team · Tim Hortons

Run your standard on every site

Fifteen minutes with someone who knows operations.

Book a 15-Minute Demo Back to inspections →