Starbucks Mobile Order Timing: What Arrival Signals Could Improve
The Starbucks mobile order timing problem is a mismatch between when a drink is made and when the customer arrives. In my experience, ordering ahead has sometimes meant waiting after arrival, and sometimes meant finding a drink that has been sitting on the counter. Better information about arrival could help, but it would need to work for customers and baristas.
Or the opposite: you arrive and your drink isn't ready. You stand around scanning the counter, trying not to get in the way. The baristas are slammed. Nobody makes eye contact. You wait. Five minutes. Ten. You wonder why you didn't just order at the register.
The drive-thru version might be worse. I've had this happen: I place a mobile order, pull up to the window, and get asked to drive around and wait because the drink isn't ready yet. At that point, what exactly did mobile ordering buy me? I could have ordered at the speaker box and gotten the same result — maybe faster, since at least then they'd start making my drink when I'm clearly there.
The promise of mobile ordering is that you're trading a wait in line for a seamless pickup. But when the drink is made at the wrong time — too early or too late — you're not saving time. You're just relocating the wait and getting a worse drink for the trouble.
That's the cost of the current system from the customer side. From behind the counter, it looks different but feels just as bad.
Baristas are producing drinks with no idea when — or whether — the customer will show up. They're making 15, 20 beverages that pile up on the pickup counter, many of them unclaimed. They're fielding questions from people who can't find their order. They're apologizing for delays they didn't cause. They're remaking drinks that sat too long. If a customer complains, the barista absorbs it — even though the system set them up to fail.
The baristas I observe are working hard. I would want to ask them what information they need before prescribing a change.
What Problem Are We Trying to Solve?
Before jumping to any solution, it's worth sitting with the problem a little longer.
The visible symptom — the crowded pickup counter, the lukewarm lattes, the confused customers — isn't the root issue. The core problem is a mismatch between when drinks are produced and when customers arrive to pick them up. Starbucks seems to be making drinks based on when orders are placed, with no information about when customers will actually show up.
From a Lean perspective, that's one type of overproduction (making something before it's needed). Not because anyone is doing something wrong, but because the system is producing finished goods before the customer is ready to receive them. The drinks become finished goods inventory — sitting in queue, losing value with every passing minute. Quality degrades. Counter space fills up. And the baristas end up managing the consequences.
So the question isn't “how do we make drinks faster?” The baristas are already working hard. The question is: how do we make drinks at the right time?
What Would “Right Time” Even Mean?
If you could design the ideal mobile order process from scratch, you'd want the drink to be finished just as the customer walks through the door or pulls up to the window. Not five minutes before. Not five minutes after. Just in time.
That phrase — “just in time” — isn't just a buzzword. In manufacturing, it describes a production philosophy built around matching output to actual demand rather than forecasted demand. You don't build inventory ahead of time and hope someone comes to claim it. You produce in response to a real signal that someone needs it now.
Now, Starbucks does have to order supplies and ingredients to the stores based on a forecast. And when there's a gap between forecasted needs and actual, that's when items or beverages become “out of stock.”
The signal Starbucks currently uses appears to be the order itself. I don't know the actual production logic — Starbucks hasn't published how stores sequence mobile orders (or I haven't found it), and it may well vary from store to store , like so many other things in their process.
But from what I can see as a regular customer, drinks seem to get made in roughly the order they're placed. Whether that's official policy or just the default behavior of a busy queue, I cannot tell from the customer side what arrival information the store has. I might be in the parking lot. I might be 15 minutes away. Both orders enter the queue the same way.
A better signal would include proximity — how far the customer is from the store and roughly when they're expected to arrive. That would let the store sequence drink production not by who ordered first, but by who's arriving first.
What Chick-fil-A, McDonald's, and Target have tried
Chick-fil-A reported testing geofencing at 100 restaurants. With customer location services enabled, approaching the restaurant could trigger preparation. In that test, reported waits fell by one to two minutes and estimated wait times were accurate more than 90% of the time.
McDonald's describes its Ready on Arrival approach as using geofencing to alert crews when customers approach. The company reports that it can reduce waits by more than 50%. Those results suggest something worth testing; they do not establish what Starbucks would achieve.
Target describes updating arrival estimates for its Drive Up team when customers opt in to location sharing. Grocery and retail pickup differ from making a beverage, but the information problem is related: employees need to know when the customer needs the order.
Test the arrival signal, including its limits
A location-based signal might help a store finish a drink closer to pickup. It would not create more capacity during a rush, guarantee an accurate arrival estimate, or replace clear instructions. Customers who decline location sharing would still need a workable process, perhaps a simple check-in.
I would test this with a small group of stores and ask baristas to help design the work. Track waiting after arrival, how long finished drinks sit, remakes, and the extra work needed to manage the system. Look at those measures over time, rather than declaring success after a good day.
The Nitro Cold Brew examples in my earlier post show why this matters. Some locations waited for me to announce my arrival; others poured before I arrived. An empty labeled cup sometimes helped me understand what was happening. A clear, simple signal can be useful before a more elaborate technology change. I described a related mismatch, when the app said my drink was ready but the store was still waiting to learn that I had arrived, in Starbucks Mobile Ordering Problems: When Pickup Does Not Match the App.
Give employees a way to improve the process
I do not know which technical, privacy, or organizational constraints explain Starbucks' choices. Assuming a cause without asking would repeat one of the common problem-solving mistakes I write about. Start with the people doing the work and the customers using the service.
That is one practical expression of respect for people: make it easier to identify a problem, test an improvement, and learn whether it helped.
Explore learning and improvement
Read a free preview of The Mistakes That Make Us to see how the book approaches learning, accountability, and improvement before deciding whether it is right for you.
Bring Lean thinking to healthcare
In Lean Hospitals: Improving Quality, Patient Safety, and Employee Engagement, I explain how hospitals use Lean to reduce delays and errors and to engage the people who do the work. It is a Shingo Publication Award recipient, now in its third edition.
I like how you explain that the real issue is not speed but rather the timing of the online system. Starbucks is creating, in a sense, finished goods inventory that the customer does not want yet, with their drinks sitting on the counter. This is inefficient, and with the fact that the drinks’ lifetime is so short, it can cause customer frustration. Connecting the mobile ordering to the actual arrival of people seems like an incredible solution that Starbucks should look at. Companies take a whole list of data from their customers, but this is an example of a company doing that, but not using that data to its full advantage. Do you think that the reason Starbucks isn’t implementing this is due to customer privacy issues, or do you think there is another reason?
That’s a good question. Maybe Starbucks thinks its customers won’t want their location data to be shared or used like that. But other companies do this, as I discussed. I’m sure customers would be able to opt out or not use these features if Starbucks offered them. But if Starbucks provided some benefits (such as shorter waiting time or bonus loyalty points), I bet many customers would choose this.