The “We’ve Always Done It This Way” Syndrome

Many finance leaders developed their careers using systems where operational information and accounting information lived in separate environments.

In these environments:

• Purchase orders were generated manually.
• Invoices were mailed or emailed to restaurants.
• Managers physically signed invoices.
• Paper copies were sent to accounting.
• Accounting personnel manually matched invoices.
• Pricing discrepancies were identified through spreadsheets.
• Approval workflows occurred through email chains.
• Reporting was assembled through exports and reconciliations.

These processes existed because the systems available at the time required them.

R365 was built specifically to eliminate much of this manual effort.

Unfortunately, when new leaders inherit an R365 environment, they often recreate the same controls and procedures that were necessary in older systems.

Rather than asking, “How does R365 solve this problem?” they ask, “How can we make R365 fit our existing process?”

That distinction is critical.

One approach leverages technology.

The other turns a modern platform into an expensive filing cabinet.. 

One of the clearest examples can be found in the procure-to-pay process.

Most restaurant organizations using R365 have the ability to establish a highly controlled purchasing environment consisting of:

1. Contracted pricing with vendors.
2. Purchase orders generated by restaurant managers.
3. Product receipt confirmation at the restaurant level.
4. Invoice matching and approval workflows.
5. Automated exception reporting.
6. Payment authorization.

This process creates a true electronic three-way match:

Step 1: Purchase Order

Restaurant managers place orders based on approved inventory items and vendor catalogs.

The system knows:

• What was ordered.
• Which vendor supplied it.
• Expected quantities.
• Expected pricing.
• Budget expectations.

Step 2: Product Receipt

When deliveries arrive, managers verify what was actually received.

Instead of approving an invoice, they are confirming operational reality:

• Did the product arrive?
• Were quantities accurate?
• Were substitutions made?
• Were shortages noted?
• Were damaged goods identified?

This information is entered directly into the system.

Step 3: Invoice Processing

When the invoice arrives, R365 can compare:

• What was ordered.
• What was received.
• What was billed.

Any discrepancies become exceptions requiring review.

The process is efficient, auditable, and largely automated.. 

The more customizable the menu, the more difficult it becomes to maintain accurate theoretical costing. 

For simple restaurant concepts with limited guest modifications, the best practice is often to create separate recipes for each menu variation. Although this requires maintaining multiple iterative recipes for essentially the same menu item, the results are highly accurate and create strong confidence in the data from both accounting and operations teams.

For example, a simple burger concept with only a few topping options can easily maintain separate recipes for a standard cheeseburger, bacon cheeseburger, or double burger. Since guest modifications are limited, recipe maintenance remains manageable and theoretical cost reporting stays reliable.

Unfortunately, organizations frequently introduce unnecessary manual controls after leadership changes.

A common example looks like this:

1. The distributor sends an invoice.
2. Accounting prints the invoice.
3. The invoice is emailed or mailed to the restaurant.
4. The manager physically signs the document.
5. The manager scans the invoice.
6. The invoice is emailed back to accounting.
7. Accounting files the document.
8. AP personnel manually review the invoice.
9. Only then is payment approved.

The irony is clear: a manager’s signature is being used to confirm receipt of goods that should already be captured and validated electronically during the receiving process. This creates a redundant workflow to verify information that already exists within the system – undermining the very purpose of the technology. As a result, the system is bypassed, labor requirements increase, cycle times slow, visibility declines, and control does not improve – in fact, it is weakened.

Many organizations justify these manual processes by arguing they create stronger controls.

In reality, the opposite is often true.

Electronic workflows provide:

• Date and time stamps.
• User identification.
• Approval history.
• Exception tracking.
• Audit trails.
• Automated notifications.

Paper approvals provide:

• A signature.
• A scanned image.
• Limited traceability.

The electronic process creates a stronger control environment while requiring significantly less labor.

Yet organizations frequently abandon these capabilities because leadership is more comfortable with procedures they used in previous systems..

Pricing Verification: Another Common Example

Broadline distributors frequently negotiate pricing agreements based on:

• Purchase volume.
• Rebates.
• Market basket commitments.
• Contract terms.
• Promotional programs.

Historically, accounting teams often used spreadsheets to validate that contracted pricing matched invoice pricing.

This made sense when systems lacked integrated purchasing controls.

R365 changes this equation entirely.

The platform can identify:

• Price variances.
• Contract deviations.
• Unexpected increases.
• Quantity discrepancies.
• Vendor billing exceptions.

These variances can be surfaced automatically through workflows and reporting.

However, teams unfamiliar with the system often continue maintaining external spreadsheets.

What happens next is predictable:

1. A buyer exports invoice data.
2. An analyst exports purchasing data.
3. A spreadsheet is created.
4. Additional formulas are built.
5. Reports are emailed.
6. Meetings are scheduled to review findings.
7. Meanwhile, the system already contains much of the required information.
8. The organization effectively pays employees to recreate functionality that already exists.

One of the biggest indicators that an organization is underutilizing R365 is the existence of parallel systems.

Examples include:

• Invoice approval spreadsheets.
• Purchase tracking spreadsheets.
• Inventory reconciliation spreadsheets.
• Vendor pricing spreadsheets.
• Budget tracking spreadsheets.
• Labor analysis spreadsheets.

While some specialized reporting may still require external analysis, many organizations maintain these files simply because someone does not trust or understand the system. This creates several problems.

Duplicate Labor

Employees perform the same task twice.
Once in R365.
Once in Excel.

Conflicting Data
Multiple versions of the truth emerge.
Managers begin debating which report is correct rather than addressing operational issues.

Reduced Adoption
When users see leadership relying on spreadsheets, they stop trusting the system.
Adoption declines rapidly.

Increased Risk

Manual spreadsheets introduce:

• Formula errors.
• Version control problems.
• Missing data.
• Lack of auditability.

Ironically, the process intended to improve control often weakens it.

The AI and Automation Opportunity

The challenge becomes even greater as R365 continues expanding its automation and artificial intelligence capabilities.

Modern restaurant finance teams increasingly have access to:

• Automated invoice capture.
• OCR processing.
• Workflow routing.
• Exception-based approvals.
• Predictive reporting.
• Operational alerts.
• Intelligent data validation.

These capabilities allow organizations to focus on exceptions rather than transactions.

This represents a fundamental shift in how accounting departments operate.

Historically, accounting teams spent their time processing information.

Modern accounting teams should spend their time analyzing information.

The difference is substantial.

A department processing invoices adds administrative value.

A department identifying operational issues, margin opportunities, purchasing problems, and financial trends adds strategic value.

Organizations that continue forcing manual processes into automated systems prevent this transformation from occurring.

The most successful R365 environments share one common characteristic.

Leadership commits to understanding how the platform was designed to operate before attempting to modify processes.

They ask questions such as:

• What workflow already exists?
• What controls are already built into the system?
• What exception reporting is available?
• What automation can replace manual effort?
• How can we leverage the existing audit trail?
• What information are we recreating outside the platform?

This mindset produces dramatically different outcomes than attempting to recreate procedures from legacy systems.

A Better Approach

When new finance or operations leaders join an organization utilizing R365, the first objective should not be changing processes.

The first objective should be understanding them.

Organizations should require incoming leaders to learn:

• Existing workflows.
• Approval structures.
• Purchasing controls.
• Receiving procedures.
• Inventory processes.
• Automation capabilities.
• Reporting functionality.
• AI-enabled features.

Only after understanding how the platform was intended to function should process changes be considered.

Many leaders discover that what initially appears to be a missing control is actually an existing feature they simply were not aware of.

Conclusion

Restaurant365 is not merely accounting software. It is an integrated operational and financial management platform designed to automate workflows, eliminate redundant tasks, improve visibility, and strengthen internal controls.

The greatest threat to these benefits is often not technology failure but organizational behavior.

When second- and third-generation leaders inherit an R365 environment and attempt to force legacy accounting procedures into a modern workflow platform, they frequently introduce unnecessary labor, duplicate processes, parallel systems, and reduced visibility.

The organizations that achieve the greatest success with R365 are those that embrace a simple principle:

Do not ask how to make R365 behave like your old system.

Ask how your organization can take full advantage of the system you already have.

The difference between those two approaches often determines whether R365 becomes a transformational business platform or simply an expensive replacement for paper, email, and spreadsheets.