February 10, 2026
HelgaQ/Depositphotos.com
Does Pushing Tech on QSRs Produce Too Much Friction?
In an interesting new report issued by Canopy titled “Fast Food Fault Lines,” the study authors indicated that while tech integrations were proliferating apace in the fast food and QSR spaces, the end result was more problematic than many restaurant PR staffers might be inclined to admit.
“In a national survey of frontline QSR employees, Canopy found that technology interruptions are a routine part of their shifts. System reliability issues outweigh training or confidence as the primary source of disruption, even though 80% of employees report feeling adequately trained. When systems freeze, go offline, or fail to sync, employees rely on manual fixes and inconvenient workarounds to keep service moving,” the intro to the report read, also noting that the median tenure in frontline QSR work currently stood at a mere two years.
“These technical disruptions are most common at locations where multiple ordering channels operate simultaneously, such as drive-thru, kiosk, and mobile. In these environments, employees spend more time reconciling systems and managing handoffs than those in locations with fewer ordering channels,” it added.
Among the standout findings presented by Canopy’s survey data:
- Kiosks are everywhere, but they’re not perfect: More than four-fifths (81%) of frontline QSR workers indicated they were called off other duties on a regular basis to deal with problems surrounding self-serve kiosks, with more than half (56%) saying this happens on a daily basis. Further, a slim majority (53%) stated that they have seen customers walk away from an order due to a related tech issue.
- Employees say mobile orders are fraught: Stating that mobile orders are among the hardest to manage, more than a third (36%) of QSR employees surveyed stated that mobile orders do not display on the POS or kitchen display system, causing confusion at baseline. More than a quarter (28%) suggested that mobile orders simply arrive all at once, or arrive late on a regular basis — and half of survey respondents said that they’d observed customers abandoning mobile orders, as compared to just 29% who observed order abandonment in restaurants without mobile apps.
- Drive-thru problems persist, and it’s not AI’s fault: While AI drive-thru order taking is slowly ramping up, Canopy’s survey results indicate that POS systems and payment terminals are presenting the bulk of today’s problems. Nearly three-quarters (72%) of QSR workers regularly witness drive-thru tech issues, with the card reader refusing to accept payment (38%), the POS being knocked offline (31%), the timer being wrong or missing vehicles (28%), and the tablet being sluggish or losing connection (23%) being the most common obstacles cited. Again, more than half (54%) of drive-thru staff said they’d seen customers abandon orders over tech faults.
And according to Steve Latham, CEO of Canopy, this data — and more findings — underlies a truth that today’s tech integrations are incomplete, sometimes misguided in finding solutions, and perhaps most importantly are taking labor away from other vital duties.
“The fast food and fast casual restaurant of 2026 depends on dozens of technologies working together to give employees leverage and customers an easy, consistent experience,” Latham said.
“Whether in the drive-thru, ordering at the kiosk, or using the mobile app, our research shows that tech problems cascade into disruptions in service, taking employees away from their jobs while frustrating customers enough that they leave. QSR operators need holistic visibility into the health and performance of every component in the restaurant tech stack plus an automated way to fix issues should they occur, if not before,” he added.
BrainTrust
John Lietsch
CEO/Founder, Align Business Consulting
Mohamed Amer, PhD
CEO & Strategic Board Advisor, Strategy Doctor
Bhargav Trivedi
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Are tech solutions being pushed too hard in the QSR business, in your opinion?
What can be done to reduce friction concerning tech integration in the QSR business?
What does the future of tech integration in this segment look like?
Poll
Loading …
Almost all QSRs work off the principles of standardization and efficiency, and their processes are built to deliver this uniformly across the chain. Depending on what it is and how it works, technology could help or hinder. If you add order kiosks and they are constantly glitchy or slow down customer orders, it’s a problem. If you add them and they allow faster order times and the freeing-up of counter staff, then that’s a benefit. In other words, this all comes down to execution.
That there would be problems and underperformance is to be assumed. Unless I am regularly using such tech, the ordering process slows by a factor of 10 to 20 — and my frustration level increases by a factor of 50 to 100. Human computer interface design is a subtle field poorly understood by the vast majority of tech firms. With superb HCI design, they might be excellent. Such design, though, is exceedingly rare.
“Solutions” seems like the wrong word choice here: you have to have a (clearly defined) problem to have a solution, and simply improving existing processes is open-ended. But more to the point: if one throws away existing procedures/tools and becomes dependent on a technology that doesn’t function properly, obviously you’ll be worse off than if you’d never adopted it at all. At least until it’s “fixed” …most of these applications are quite new…it seems premature to throw in the towel (even it the sales pitch oversold reality)
This was my issue with “Amazon Go.” Who’s gonna fix it when it breaks? I’m not surprised
In some cases, technology in the QSR space is being pushed faster than the customer or the operation is ready to absorb — not because the tools themselves lack value, but because execution and integration often lag behind ambition. Self-service kiosks, mobile ordering, AI drive-thru systems, and automation can absolutely improve speed and accuracy, but when they introduce complexity, confusion, or inconsistent experiences, they create friction rather than efficiency. The reality is that QSR remains a high-frequency, convenience-driven business, and any technology that slows down the ordering journey or removes the human element without improving outcomes risks alienating customers who simply want a fast, reliable experience.
Reducing friction starts with designing technology around real operational workflows and customer behavior, not around novelty. Seamless POS integration, clear user interfaces, reliable order accuracy, and strong employee training matter more than flashy innovation. Brands also need to balance digital and human touchpoints — allowing customers to choose how they engage rather than forcing a single path. The most successful implementations treat technology as a background enabler: streamlining ordering, personalizing offers, and improving kitchen efficiency without making the experience feel overly engineered or impersonal.
Looking ahead, the future of tech integration in QSR will likely be quietly intelligent rather than visibly disruptive. AI-driven personalization, predictive kitchen operations, and frictionless payments will increasingly operate behind the scenes, helping operators manage labor constraints, improve throughput, and maintain a consistent guest experience. The winners won’t necessarily be those who deploy the most technology, but those who integrate it thoughtfully — enhancing speed, convenience, and personalization without losing the simplicity that defines great QSR execution.
Whether it’s the 1 horse-power horse or the multi-horse-power automobile, technology often requires people to fix it; it requires vets in the case of horses and mechanics in the case of cars. That’s the price we pay for choosing not to walk.
I’m a huge fan of mobile ordering, self-checkout and kiosks; and as a frequent traveler, I practically live on in-flight WiFi. Ironically, the in-flight WiFi is the most temperamental and often fixed by the proverbial jiggling of the wires or reset of the system. Somehow, we manage.
I guess the surprise isn’t that we pushed the tech, it’s that we’re surprised that the tech was pushed. What did we think would happen?
Highly integrated, highly reliable systems are not new. The answer is not to revert to walking (throw out the tech). The answer is to continuously improve how we design and implement highly integrated, highly available systems and to expand the scope of our implementations to consider the inevitably predictable “Tech Tantrum!”
In QSR, fragmented POS, kiosks, mobile, and payments fail when the underlying infrastructure, monitoring, and orchestration aren’t designed as a single system. Reducing friction means fewer integrations, clearer ownership, real-time observability, and automated recovery. The future is simpler, composable stacks that enable speed and personalization without overwhelming frontline staff. Any technology is as good as the underlying infrastructure supporting the technology.
The industry is currently in a ‘Frankenstein’ additive phase of digital transformation. Restaurants are layering mobile apps, third-party delivery tablets, self-service kiosks, and AI voice ordering on top of legacy POS systems that weren’t built to handle simultaneous streams of data. The QSR of the future must embrace an integrative ‘invisible tech’ model. The most successful brands will be those where customers don’t even realize they are interacting with a complex stack; they just get their food faster.
My local Whole Foods has at least 12 self-checkouts. I use one all the time. There is always a glitch, but it usually involves the ability to scan a particular package. But it is hardly a problem. There is always an associate on stand-by, ready. The problem is anticipated.
I can’t recall the last time I was at a QSR, but I’m unclear on why there are the difficulties discussed today. It strikes me that the kiosk technology is at the simplest level, as technology goes. Just touch the screen. Is HQ not paying attention?
When the tech works, we are happy – both customers and employees. If there are glitches being felt at this level, then shame on the brand for implementing too soon. The findings shared are telling.
To reduce friction, do not roll out the tech until it’s tested and ready for prime time.
In due time, we’ll see more and more technology integrated into ordering and payment systems. Remember when the airlines rolled out online booking and check-in? It took a while for passengers to get comfortable with the system, and now it’s easy for them to book their tickets; only a small percentage need to speak with an agent.
Adding tech without thoroughly considering integration can shift the burden onto employees. Instead of saving time, teams end up managing workarounds between disconnected systems. At that point, the technology is creating more friction than efficiency.
Tech is designed to support humans. Not the other way around.
If a company implements technology that leads to significant human intervention, it likely wasn’t implemented effectively.
THE SOLUTION:
- find tech that helps streamline operations
- test
- refine
- test again to prove shopper benefits, staff benefits, and business benefits
- then roll out at scale
Technology helps – when led by humans, thoughtfully.
More Discussions
Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?
Will a Hybrid Pharmacist Role Help Solve Labor Issues for Walgreens?Should Burger King’s President Be Giving Out his Cell Phone Number?
Will this move by Burger King’s Tom Curtis drive meaningful results?How Much Of A Discount Drives New Grocery Trial?
How Much Of A Discount Drives New Grocery Trial?
Almost all QSRs work off the principles of standardization and efficiency, and their processes are built to deliver this uniformly across the chain. Depending on what it is and how it works, technology could help or hinder. If you add order kiosks and they are constantly glitchy or slow down customer orders, it’s a problem. If you add them and they allow faster order times and the freeing-up of counter staff, then that’s a benefit. In other words, this all comes down to execution.
That there would be problems and underperformance is to be assumed. Unless I am regularly using such tech, the ordering process slows by a factor of 10 to 20 — and my frustration level increases by a factor of 50 to 100. Human computer interface design is a subtle field poorly understood by the vast majority of tech firms. With superb HCI design, they might be excellent. Such design, though, is exceedingly rare.
“Solutions” seems like the wrong word choice here: you have to have a (clearly defined) problem to have a solution, and simply improving existing processes is open-ended. But more to the point: if one throws away existing procedures/tools and becomes dependent on a technology that doesn’t function properly, obviously you’ll be worse off than if you’d never adopted it at all. At least until it’s “fixed” …most of these applications are quite new…it seems premature to throw in the towel (even it the sales pitch oversold reality)
This was my issue with “Amazon Go.” Who’s gonna fix it when it breaks? I’m not surprised
In some cases, technology in the QSR space is being pushed faster than the customer or the operation is ready to absorb — not because the tools themselves lack value, but because execution and integration often lag behind ambition. Self-service kiosks, mobile ordering, AI drive-thru systems, and automation can absolutely improve speed and accuracy, but when they introduce complexity, confusion, or inconsistent experiences, they create friction rather than efficiency. The reality is that QSR remains a high-frequency, convenience-driven business, and any technology that slows down the ordering journey or removes the human element without improving outcomes risks alienating customers who simply want a fast, reliable experience.
Reducing friction starts with designing technology around real operational workflows and customer behavior, not around novelty. Seamless POS integration, clear user interfaces, reliable order accuracy, and strong employee training matter more than flashy innovation. Brands also need to balance digital and human touchpoints — allowing customers to choose how they engage rather than forcing a single path. The most successful implementations treat technology as a background enabler: streamlining ordering, personalizing offers, and improving kitchen efficiency without making the experience feel overly engineered or impersonal.
Looking ahead, the future of tech integration in QSR will likely be quietly intelligent rather than visibly disruptive. AI-driven personalization, predictive kitchen operations, and frictionless payments will increasingly operate behind the scenes, helping operators manage labor constraints, improve throughput, and maintain a consistent guest experience. The winners won’t necessarily be those who deploy the most technology, but those who integrate it thoughtfully — enhancing speed, convenience, and personalization without losing the simplicity that defines great QSR execution.
Whether it’s the 1 horse-power horse or the multi-horse-power automobile, technology often requires people to fix it; it requires vets in the case of horses and mechanics in the case of cars. That’s the price we pay for choosing not to walk.
I’m a huge fan of mobile ordering, self-checkout and kiosks; and as a frequent traveler, I practically live on in-flight WiFi. Ironically, the in-flight WiFi is the most temperamental and often fixed by the proverbial jiggling of the wires or reset of the system. Somehow, we manage.
I guess the surprise isn’t that we pushed the tech, it’s that we’re surprised that the tech was pushed. What did we think would happen?
Highly integrated, highly reliable systems are not new. The answer is not to revert to walking (throw out the tech). The answer is to continuously improve how we design and implement highly integrated, highly available systems and to expand the scope of our implementations to consider the inevitably predictable “Tech Tantrum!”
In QSR, fragmented POS, kiosks, mobile, and payments fail when the underlying infrastructure, monitoring, and orchestration aren’t designed as a single system. Reducing friction means fewer integrations, clearer ownership, real-time observability, and automated recovery. The future is simpler, composable stacks that enable speed and personalization without overwhelming frontline staff. Any technology is as good as the underlying infrastructure supporting the technology.
The industry is currently in a ‘Frankenstein’ additive phase of digital transformation. Restaurants are layering mobile apps, third-party delivery tablets, self-service kiosks, and AI voice ordering on top of legacy POS systems that weren’t built to handle simultaneous streams of data. The QSR of the future must embrace an integrative ‘invisible tech’ model. The most successful brands will be those where customers don’t even realize they are interacting with a complex stack; they just get their food faster.
My local Whole Foods has at least 12 self-checkouts. I use one all the time. There is always a glitch, but it usually involves the ability to scan a particular package. But it is hardly a problem. There is always an associate on stand-by, ready. The problem is anticipated.
I can’t recall the last time I was at a QSR, but I’m unclear on why there are the difficulties discussed today. It strikes me that the kiosk technology is at the simplest level, as technology goes. Just touch the screen. Is HQ not paying attention?
When the tech works, we are happy – both customers and employees. If there are glitches being felt at this level, then shame on the brand for implementing too soon. The findings shared are telling.
To reduce friction, do not roll out the tech until it’s tested and ready for prime time.
In due time, we’ll see more and more technology integrated into ordering and payment systems. Remember when the airlines rolled out online booking and check-in? It took a while for passengers to get comfortable with the system, and now it’s easy for them to book their tickets; only a small percentage need to speak with an agent.
Adding tech without thoroughly considering integration can shift the burden onto employees. Instead of saving time, teams end up managing workarounds between disconnected systems. At that point, the technology is creating more friction than efficiency.
Tech is designed to support humans. Not the other way around.
If a company implements technology that leads to significant human intervention, it likely wasn’t implemented effectively.
THE SOLUTION:
Technology helps – when led by humans, thoughtfully.