Definition

A five-question screen run against any opportunity before committing, determining whether it belongs in the operation at all: does it serve the Guest the concept was built for; does it strengthen what already works; does it dilute the concept; can it be executed at standard given everything already on the plate; and is it more important than what is already being done.

Explanation

The screen functions as a gate rather than a scoring system — an opportunity doesn’t need to pass all five questions with equal strength, but a clear failure on any one of them is a strong signal the opportunity doesn’t belong in this operation regardless of how attractive it looks in isolation. A new menu item might serve an adjacent Guest the concept wasn’t built for, or a promising partnership might strengthen revenue while diluting the concept’s identity — either failure is disqualifying even if the rest of the case looks strong.

The fourth question — can it be executed at standard given everything already on the plate — is the one operators skip most often, because it requires an honest inventory of current capacity rather than an assessment of the opportunity in isolation. An idea that would be excellent for an operation with slack capacity can be the wrong move for the same operation already stretched thin, not because the idea is bad, but because adding it now guarantees execution below standard.

The fifth question forces explicit prioritization against the status quo rather than treating “is this good” as sufficient justification on its own. Plenty of genuinely good opportunities lose to this question, because being good isn’t the bar — being more important than what’s already being done, and therefore worth displacing it, is the actual bar. This is what keeps [The Five Questions] from becoming a rubber stamp for anything reasonably competent.