Every kitchen that gets serious about waste reduction faces the same question: clipboard or computer?
The clipboard approach is simple. Buy a scale, stick it near the bins, get staff to log what goes in. No technology required beyond a pen and a spreadsheet. Plenty of operations have cut waste by 20-30% this way.
The automated approach uses cameras and AI to identify and weigh everything automatically. No manual logging, no relying on busy staff to remember. More expensive upfront, but less friction day-to-day.
Neither is universally better. It depends on your operation, your team, and honestly, how much you're willing to spend versus how much patience you have.
The Case for Manual Tracking
Manual waste logging has one massive advantage: it costs almost nothing to start. A decent kitchen scale runs €50-100. A clipboard and some printed sheets cost a few euros. You can be tracking waste by tomorrow morning.
There's also an argument that the act of logging changes behaviour. When a chef has to write down "400g beef trim" and sign their name, they think twice about how they're butchering. The friction is a feature.
Manual tracking works best when:
- You're testing whether waste reduction is worth investing in
- Your team is small and motivated
- You have a manager who'll actually review the logs daily
- Your waste problem is obvious and you just need to make it visible
The downsides are real though. Compliance drops off—usually within 2-3 weeks. Staff are busy; logging gets forgotten or fudged. The data arrives late, often days after the fact. And you're relying on people to correctly identify and categorise waste, which introduces errors.
The Case for Automated Monitoring
Automated systems solve the compliance problem completely. Everything that crosses the sensor gets logged. There's no remembering, no forms to fill out, no end-of-shift data entry that gets skipped when things run late.
The data is also richer. AI can identify specific items, track patterns by time of day, flag anomalies. You're not just getting "500g vegetables"—you're getting "300g carrot peelings at 2pm, 200g lettuce at 6pm." That specificity matters when you're trying to fix problems.
Automated monitoring makes sense when:
- You've tried manual tracking and compliance was the issue
- Your operation is large enough that the cost scales sensibly
- You want real-time alerts, not weekly reports
- You're targeting serious reduction goals (40%+ cuts)
- You need audit-ready data for sustainability reporting
The downside is cost. You're looking at hardware, installation, and typically a monthly subscription. For a single small restaurant, that might not make financial sense. For a hotel group or large catering operation, the ROI usually works out within 3-6 months.
What the Data Quality Difference Looks Like
This is where things get interesting. Manual logs tend to under-report waste by 30-50%. Not because anyone's lying—staff are just busy and don't log everything. That lemon wedge that fell on the floor? Not logged. The sauce that got burnt and tipped out? Probably not logged either.
Automated systems capture everything. This can be confronting at first—the numbers look worse than your manual data suggested. But you can't fix what you can't see.
There's also consistency. Manual logs vary depending on who's on shift. Some staff are diligent; others less so. Automated data is consistent regardless of who's working, which makes trend analysis actually meaningful.
A Hybrid Approach
Some operations start manual to prove the concept, then upgrade to automated once they've demonstrated ROI. This is sensible—you learn what matters to track, build some awareness in the team, and make a more informed technology decision later.
The key is not to get stuck in the middle ground forever. Manual tracking with falling compliance is worse than no tracking at all, because you think you have visibility when you don't.
Making the Decision
If you're spending less than €30k/month on food and have a small, tight team, manual tracking can work. Keep it simple, review daily, and accept that your data won't be perfect.
If you're larger, have multiple sites, or need the data for external reporting, automated monitoring is probably worth the investment. The compliance problem alone tends to justify the cost.
Either way, the worst option is doing nothing. Even imperfect data beats flying blind.
Calculate your potential savings to help make the business case, or talk to us if you want to discuss what makes sense for your operation.