Review how long requests wait for staff action

The decision this workflow supports

An inbox can look tidy while requests are waiting too long for their next action. Review the age of unresolved items using the restaurant’s own response expectations, rather than importing a benchmark that may not fit staffing.

Put the review process in place

Measure time from receipt to the first meaningful staff review and identify items with no next action. Separate a request waiting for the guest from one waiting for the restaurant. Discuss the oldest examples with the assigned owner and agree a practical follow-up.

Worked example for your team

A fictional queue has one inquiry waiting for a staff quote and another waiting for the organizer to choose a date. Both are several days old, but the next actions belong to different people. The aging review should distinguish them instead of treating both as staff failures. Ask each owner to state the next step and whether a follow-up is appropriate. Keep the original receipt and review times visible. Changing a status should not make an old unresolved item appear new or remove the context needed to understand why it remains open.

Sample wording to approve

“Staff review prompt: this request has been waiting since [time]. Is the next step with us or the guest, who owns it, and what action will move it forward?” This wording is a draft for the restaurant owner to approve before use.

Fields for the staff handoff

Staff need received time, first review time, waiting reason, owner, and next action date. Mark uncertain details explicitly and keep the requested action separate from anything restaurant staff have already confirmed.

Acceptance tests before use

Waiting-for-guest items are distinguished from staff delays. The oldest item has a named next action. Closing an item does not erase its review history. Record the observed result, assign any mismatch, and repeat the affected scenario after correction.

Related guides