Two groups in one
The acquisition completed three months ago. The four new sites are trading well, but head office sees them in a separate spreadsheet. Their EPOS uses different category names. Their rota tool is not the one the group uses. Their suppliers are different, and their accounts are still in a separate company file. Every report is built twice and joined by hand, and the comparisons never quite line up.
The plan is to move them onto the group's systems, but the EPOS contract runs for another year, the staff know the rota tool, and a rushed switch in the middle of a busy season is the last thing the GMs want.
Why acquired sites stay separate
- Replacing EPOS, rota and stock systems is expensive and disruptive, so it is delayed.
- Contracts on the acquired systems still have time to run.
- Categories, product codes and site structures differ, so data cannot simply be added together.
- Staff and managers at the new sites need time to adjust to the group's ways.
- Finance keeps the acquired company's books separate until a later restructure.
All of these are good reasons to take system changes slowly. None of them should mean head office runs blind on the new sites.
The cost of a split view
Someone spends time every week rebuilding reports for the new sites. Comparisons between old and new sites are unreliable, so decisions about menus, staffing and investment are made with less confidence. Integration issues that could be spotted early, such as a site with a very different GP or labour pattern, are hidden in a separate sheet. And the acquired team feels like an add-on rather than part of the group.
How we bring acquired sites into group reporting
- We connect to the acquired sites' EPOS, rota and accounts systems as they are, through APIs or exports.
- Their categories, products and cost centres are mapped to the group's structure in a maintained mapping table, not a one-off spreadsheet.
- Data from both sets of systems flows into one reporting store, so the flash, site P&L and dashboards show all sites together.
- Mapping gaps, such as a new product or category, are queued for someone to classify.
- When a site moves onto group systems, its data source is switched and history is kept, so trend lines continue unbroken.
| Area | Acquired site system | Group reporting |
|---|---|---|
| Sales | Their EPOS | Mapped to group categories |
| Labour | Their rota tool | Same labour measures as group |
| Costs | Separate company accounts | Site P&L on group layout |
| Menus and products | Their own codes | Mapped to group catalogue |
This gives you time to plan the system migrations properly: by contract end date, by season, and site by site, rather than all at once.
A group that reports as one
The GMs at the new sites keep working with the tills and rotas they know, which matters in the first months after a sale when staff are already uncertain. From the first weeks after completion, the acquired sites appear in the daily flash and the weekly P&L beside the rest of the estate. Head office compares them fairly and spots differences early. When each site moves to group systems, its reports simply carry on. The acquisition plan can focus on people and guests, not on spreadsheets.
Does this match your situation?
- Acquired sites report in a separate spreadsheet.
- Different EPOS systems use different categories.
- Replacing their systems is planned but not yet affordable or sensible.
- Comparisons between old and new sites do not line up.
- Someone joins the reports together by hand every week.