Finding the Optimal Assessment Frequency for Maximum Impact

How Many Assessment Visits Are Optimal?

No doubt that effective assessments can greatly impact results. So the question we get asked a lot is: What’s the optimal frequency for assessments? Based on years of experience and from working with programs designed with different assessment frequencies, we know the answer! 

Drumroll please…our data clearly shows that four assessments per year yield the best improvement between visits. Why, you ask? It seems this frequency strikes an ideal balance: frequent enough to reinforce expectations for accountability, but not so frequent that operators don’t have a reasonable amount of time allowing for follow up to implement changes.

• Too few visits: When assessments are infrequent, operating staff tend to forget about the full scope of their accountability. Good discipline can give way to bad practices, exposing the operation - and the brand - to significantly higher risk.
• Too many visits: On the other hand, too many visits can lead to assessment fatigue and even resentment among the operating staff who may feel overwhelmed and unable to implement corrective actions between assessments.

Instead of a high-frequency of scored assessments, we recommend supplementing quarterly “official” assessments with self-assessments and targeted training sessions that help locations practice and refine their processes between those visits. Self-assessments are typically structured to evaluate the same items during standard assessments, allowing restaurants to regularly gauge how they’re doing. 

But as the saying goes in sports …the best teams practice the way that they play real games. The same is true about self-assessments - after all, these essentially provide a way for locations to practice. 

And our data shows that.

Rather than rushing through them as a ‘check-the-box’ exercise, restaurants that take their time on self-assessments and conduct them with a mindset of looking for areas to improve tend to achieve significantly better results on their “official” assessments.

While many organizations expect self-assessments to mirror the exact same scope and structure of those official assessments, some opt for a more modular approach—breaking self-assessments into smaller, more manageable chunks to reduce the time burden on managers. This strategy can reduce the need to rush the process, allowing them to observe their operation more closely and to identify areas of the restaurant and specific tasks that may need to be improved.

*Related: The Pitfalls of Skipped Assessments: Why Top Performers Need Consistent Oversight

Consider Coaching Assessments for Sustainable Improved Performance

Traditional assessment programs rely on a punitive approach - if a location fails, they face mandatory re-assessments in 4-6 weeks, with franchisees typically bearing the costs. The assumption is that financial penalties and failure threats will drive improvement.

However, our experience and data show this approach rarely works. 

Instead of making meaningful changes, locations often resort to temporary fixes just to pass re-assessments before reverting to poor practices. For example, they refresh sanitizers only when auditors arrive instead of implementing robust daily sanitizing processes, discard perfectly good food to avoid temperature violations, or move "clean" dishes into three-compartment sinks knowing dirty items being readied for cleaning won't be evaluated.

Our data clearly demonstrates this pattern: locations that implement robust changes to ensure good processes and stronger accountability consistently score better on subsequent assessments two, three, and even four cycles down the road. In contrast, locations adopting these "gaming" behaviors score much worse on subsequent assessments.

As an alternative, we've introduced Coaching Assessments with several clients. These are announced, collaborative visits where assessors walk staff through the process, sharing best practices from successful operators within their concept. Scores are provided but not "official" - they serve only as improvement guidance. The focus shifts to building effective processes and accountability.

The result is clear: when re-assessments are scheduled repeatedly, poor-performing locations show little sustained improvement over time, while the coaching approach leads to lasting positive change.

To break this cycle, Coaching Assessments should be integrated into the program, prioritizing teaching and guidance over repeated evaluations. Rather than simply identifying problems, these coaching visits focus on teaching staff how to improve—a crucial distinction that drives long-term success.

*Related: Operational Discipline: You Know the Term, But Do You Know the Real Impact on Your Business?

Building a Culture of Continuous Improvement

The most successful food safety and operational excellence programs go beyond simply measuring compliance—they foster a culture of continuous improvement. By implementing the right assessment frequency (quarterly visits), encouraging thoughtful self-assessments, and replacing punitive re-assessments with collaborative coaching, organizations can transform their approach from reactive to proactive. 

This shift not only leads to more sustainable performance improvements but also empowers staff to take ownership of operational excellence. When teams understand not just what to do but why it matters, the result is better protection for both customers and the brand—creating a foundation for long-term success that benefits everyone involved.

Discover how Steritech can help you deliver your ideal brand experience with OnBrand360®.