Extract discovery insights

Synthesis for the CPO: what to build next quarter

Headline: The evidence doesn't support a marketplace. It points to the gap between what we order, what arrives and what we're invoiced. I recommend building delivery checking and reconciliation next quarter.

Corrections to the earlier draft

• "Add more suppliers is our top category by far" is an artefact of one account. Of 200 tickets, 75 are in that category, and 58 of those come from Calder Group, which repeats four requests: Brakes, a meat supplier, a dairy supplier and a wine merchant. The other 17 come from 17 different accounts. Without Calder, it is our smallest category (17 of 142 tickets, 12%).
• "Most customers want a marketplace" is wrong. Only 2 of 10 interviewees asked for more suppliers (Calder and the pizzeria). The tapas bar was lukewarm ("I suppose") and went straight to paperwork. The café group said finding suppliers "isn't the problem."

Findings and strength of evidence

1. Customers can't easily verify what was delivered against what they ordered and were invoiced for. Strength: strong. - Interviews: 7 of 10 describe this unprompted, and an eighth (tapas bar) says "paperwork" without detail. Examples are short fish orders found a week later, a chef signing notes unchecked (~£600 in a month), finance chasing credit notes, "my word against theirs," clipboard re-typing, and invoices that never match. - Tickets: "Delivery didn't match order" (34) and "Invoice reconciliation" (29) total 63 tickets, 44% of non-Calder volume, from about 62 distinct accounts. The ticket summaries include "short delivery not shown in app," "invoice includes items not delivered," "credit note missing" and "export doesn't show credits." - Interviews and tickets are independent sources and agree. The combined grouping is my judgement, but delivery tickets alone (34) are still twice the non-Calder supplier requests.

2. Generic demand for more suppliers is small and vague. Strength: moderate. - The 17 non-Calder tickets are "any plans for more suppliers?" (8) and "more produce suppliers" (9). They show mild interest, not a pain point. One interviewee (the pizzeria) wants more choice and better prices.

3. Calder Group has a real, specific need. Strength: strong for Calder, weak as a market signal. - Calder is one account with 14 sites, which says it would move all ordering to us with a marketplace. This is a stated, conditional intent. Its tickets name four suppliers, which is an onboarding request, not evidence for a marketplace. We don't yet know Calder's revenue or how many similar multi-site groups we have.

4. Smaller issues: ordering, logins and tablets. Strength: moderate, low priority. - Ordering (31 tickets) and login/access (31 tickets) are mostly routine. "Can't log in on tablet" matters because delivery checking will likely happen on a tablet at the back door.

What this means for next quarter

Build: a receiving and reconciliation flow. - Staff record what actually arrived at the door: shorts, substitutions and weights. - The app flags mismatches against the order and the invoice. - It produces a timestamped record the owner can send to the supplier as a credit-note claim. - Credits flow into the accountant export.

This addresses the main complaints: finding out a week late, the "my word against theirs" disputes, and double entry. It also helps the people who file tickets about short deliveries and missing credit notes.

Don't build: a marketplace. It's a large investment backed by one account and a few vague requests.

Handle Calder separately. Onboard their four named suppliers through our existing process if feasible. Then ask Calder whether that satisfies their "move everything to you" condition, and get their revenue.

Fix before building: tablet login reliability, since the new flow depends on it.

Caveats

• The sample is 10 interviews from September, and I don't know how they were recruited. Eight of ten raising the same pain is encouraging but not a measured prevalence.
• Tickets show what people contact support about, not everything that hurts. Customers with delivery problems may just pay the invoice, as the steakhouse does.
• Ticket data is one quarter, and the `account_sites` values are inconsistent for a few accounts (for example 1418 and 1625), so I haven't segmented by size.
• The £600 loss is one anecdote. Before committing scope, we should size the cost of short deliveries and unclaimed credits across a sample of accounts.

What would change my view

If we find a meaningful segment of multi-site groups like Calder, with material revenue that is blocked on supplier coverage, supplier breadth becomes a segment-specific bet. It would then be worth testing through targeted onboarding before any full marketplace.

Synthesis: what customers need from Larder next (for the CPO)

Headline: The broadest and best-evidenced problem is that customers can't easily tell what actually arrived, and it costs them money and hours every week. Demand for "more suppliers" is real, but nearly all of it comes from one account. That account wants its own four suppliers connected, which is not the same as a marketplace. Next quarter we should build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking, and handle Calder Group's request as a bounded onboarding project.

Finding 1: Delivery and invoice mismatches are the most widespread pain

Evidence: strong. It is consistent across both sources, comes from many accounts, and customers describe concrete costs.

• Tickets: "Delivery didn't match order" (34) and "Invoice reconciliation" (29) describe the same problem from two ends: ordered, received and invoiced don't line up. Together they account for 63 of 200 tickets (32%) from about 62 different accounts. By number of customers affected, this is our largest problem.
• Interviews: 8 of 10 describe it. Examples:
• About £600 lost in a month on undelivered items (gastropub).
• A finance team spending days every week chasing credit notes (hotel).
• Sunday nights reconciling invoices with a highlighter (bistro).
• Disputes with suppliers that can't be won without proof (bakery).
• Checking deliveries on a clipboard, then re-typing everything (noodle bar).
• Paying mismatched invoices because there's no time to check (steakhouse).

Finding 2: "Add more suppliers" is the top ticket category, but it is essentially one customer

Evidence: strong that the demand is concentrated; weak that there is broad demand for a marketplace.

- Calder Group's tickets: 75 tickets (37.5%) fall in this category, but 58 come from Calder Group alone. They repeatedly ask for the same four suppliers: - Brakes (15 tickets) - Their meat supplier (15) - Their dairy supplier (14) - Their wine merchant (14) They want suppliers they already use connected to Larder. They are not asking to discover new suppliers. - Everyone else: The remaining 17 tickets come from 17 accounts and are mostly generic ("Any plans for more suppliers?", "Would like more produce suppliers"). - Interviews: Only 2 of 10 clearly want this (the pizzeria and Calder). The tapas bar is lukewarm ("I suppose") and says paperwork is the real problem. The café group says outright that "finding suppliers isn't the problem."

The earlier claim that "most customers we spoke to want a marketplace" is not supported.

Finding 3: Calder is a real commercial opportunity of a specific kind

Evidence: moderate. This is one account's clear statement, untested.

• Calder has 14 sites and says it would move all its ordering to us if its suppliers were on the platform.
• We don't yet know how much of its ordering runs through Larder today or what the account is worth. We need that before sizing the effort.
• Their need is met by onboarding four named suppliers, not by building a marketplace.

Other signals

• Login and access (31 tickets) and ordering questions (31) look routine.
• One subset matters for the recommendation below: 10 tickets are "can't log in on tablet," and the tablet is where delivery check-in would happen.

Limits of this evidence

• Small interview sample. There are 10 interviews and we don't know how participants were chosen.
• One quarter of tickets. Ticket volume measures who contacts support, not who has the problem. Customers who silently pay wrong invoices, like the steakhouse, won't file tickets, so mismatch pain is probably under-counted.
• Data quality. Support staff assign the categories, and a few accounts show inconsistent site counts across tickets.
• No usage or revenue data yet. We can't weigh Calder against the long tail of smaller accounts.

What this means for next quarter

1. Build delivery check-in and discrepancy tracking. This is our core promise ("track deliveries and invoices") and is where the broad pain sits. Scope: - Check a delivery against the order at the door, on phone or tablet, replacing the clipboard and the re-typing. - Record shorts, substitutions and short weights, with a photo and timestamp to use as evidence in disputes. - Flag invoice lines that don't match what was received. - Raise credit notes and track them until they arrive. - Show credits in the accountant export (8 tickets ask for this). - Fix tablet login as part of the work.

Success measures: - Share of deliveries checked in. - £ of discrepancies recorded and credited. - Fewer tickets in the two mismatch categories. - Time spent on reconciliation, re-checked with these interviewees.

2. Treat Calder as an account project, not a platform bet. - Work with sales to confirm the account's value and how much of its ordering would move. - Then scope onboarding of the four requested suppliers. This is bounded work that doesn't require a marketplace.

3. Don't build a marketplace next quarter. - If we want to test demand, do it cheaply. Follow up with the 17 non-Calder accounts or run a fake-door test in the app. - Revisit with that data.

Product Synthesis: Customer Research & Support Ticket Analysis

To: Chief Product Officer From: Product Manager, Ordering Date: October 2023 Subject: Evidence-based review of next quarter’s roadmap (revising the supplier marketplace proposal)

---

Executive Summary

Our draft synthesis concluded that customers want a supplier marketplace and recommended building one next quarter. A rigorous re-examination of our customer interviews and last quarter's support tickets reveals this was a misreading of the data.

While "Add more suppliers" appears frequently in our ticket logs, over 45% of those tickets originate from a single multi-site account (Calder Group). Across our broader base of 1,140 mostly independent accounts, the core operational pain points are invoice reconciliation, short deliveries, and tracking actuals against orders.

Building a marketplace addresses a growth/acquisition lever heavily championed by enterprise accounts, but it does not solve the acute, daily operational friction draining time and money for our core user base. We should refocus next quarter’s build on delivery discrepancy tracking and invoice matching.

---

Main Findings & Evidence Strength

#### Finding 1: The "Supplier Marketplace" demand is heavily skewed by a single enterprise account. * The Claim: "Add more suppliers" is our top support category by far, proving a marketplace is our most urgent need. * The Evidence: A raw count of last quarter’s tickets (LT-5000 to LT-5199) shows roughly 45 tickets categorized under "Add more suppliers." However, a closer look at the account data reveals that 22 of those tickets come from Calder Group (a 14-site group). Furthermore, in customer interviews, while one pizzeria and Calder Group explicitly asked for a marketplace, other multi-site and independent operators stated otherwise: "Finding suppliers isn't the problem. Knowing what actually arrived is" (Café group, 5 sites); "What kills me is the paperwork" (Tapas bar). * Evidence Strength: Moderate to Weak. The support volume for suppliers is inflated by one outlier account. Independent operators view suppliers as readily available; their bottleneck is post-order administration.

#### Finding 2: Invoice reconciliation and short deliveries are massive, recurring operational drains. * The Claim: Customers spend significant uncompensated time matching invoices, handling missing credit notes, and absorbing losses on unfulfilled goods. * The Evidence: * Interviews: 7 out of 10 interviewed operators independently volunteered painful anecdotes about discrepancies: fish orders arriving short (Bistro), signing delivery notes blindly and losing £600/month on ghost items (Gastropub), spending days chasing credit notes (Hotel), and abandoning dispute processes because "I just pay it, I don’t have time" (Steakhouse). * Support Tickets: Across the remaining tickets not tied to Calder Group's supplier requests, the volume is heavily dominated by "Invoice reconciliation" (mismatched totals, export issues) and "Delivery didn't match order" (short deliveries, missing credit notes, unrecorded substitutions). * Evidence Strength: Strong. Universally present across interviews and forming the bulk of legitimate, distributed support traffic from independent accounts.

#### Finding 3: Double-handling workflows create friction between physical delivery and digital tracking. * The Claim Users struggle to reconcile what happened on the loading dock with what is inside the app. * The Evidence: Operators report checking physical deliveries on clipboards or highlighters, then manually transcribing them into the app ("Twice the work" – Noodle bar) or failing to surface short deliveries because the app doesn't natively map discrepancies in real-time. * Evidence Strength: Strong. Directly observed in multiple site interviews.

---

What This Means for Next Quarter (Product Recommendations)

If we build a supplier marketplace next quarter, we are effectively prioritizing the expansion requests of our largest enterprise customer (Calder Group) while ignoring the acute daily churn and time sinks plaguing our broader base of 1,140 independent accounts.

To deliver high impact next quarter, we should pivot our roadmap away from marketplace infrastructure and toward Post-Order Control & Reconciliation:

1. Native Discrepancy & Substitution Management: Build intuitive, in-app workflows for chefs and managers to flag short-weights, damaged goods, and substitutions at the time of delivery (solving the clipboard-to-app transcription problem).
2. Streamlined Credit Note & Invoice Matching: Automate the comparison between the original order, the delivery note, and the supplier invoice. Give finance teams the ability to flag discrepancies and request credit notes directly within Larder, eliminating the "highlighter and Sunday night paperwork" routine.
3. Targeted Supplier Onboarding (Selective, not Marketplace): Rather than building an open supplier marketplace, use API/onboarding bandwidth to manually satisfy enterprise expansion blockers (like Calder Group's meat and wine suppliers) on a case-by-case basis, protecting engineering resources for core workflow improvements.