1. SUMMER 2006
A SUPPLEMENT TO HOSPITALITY TECHNOLOGY
Rating TOP POS Systems
BASED ON USER S AT I S F A C T I O N SCORES

2. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Contents
® 4 Top 20 Systems
Now in its third year, the POS Scoreboard offers the
industry’s only ranking of the top foodservice point-of-sale
FOUNDER
software companies based on company size, number of
Douglas C. Edgell
1951-1998 installations and user satisfaction.
4 Top POS Software Companies
Summer 2006
PUBLISHER
6 User Satisfaction Scores
How do POS software systems compare in the opinion of
Lenore O’Meara foodservice operators? The user satisfaction scores offer
ext. 245 s lomeara@edgellmail.com
charts and analyses of how systems fared in the criteria
deemed most important by the operators themselves.
EDITOR-IN-CHIEF
Reid A. Paul 6 Top POS Software Systems
ext. 315 s rpaul@edgellmail.com 6 User Satisfaction
8 Overall Performance
ACCOUNT EXECUTIVE
Leah Segarra 8 Strategic Value
ext. 270 s lsegarra@edgellmail.com 10 Total Cost of Ownership
10 Return on Investment
CREATIVE DIRECTOR
Colette Magliaro 12 Ease of Upgrade
ext. 203 s cmagliaro@edgellmail.com 12 Support and Service
14 Start-up Restaurants (1-4 units)
ART DIRECTOR
Pamela C. Ravetier 14 Small Chains (5-50 units)
ext. 255 s pravetier@edgellmail.com 14 Large Chains (51-200 units)
14 Enterprise Chains (200+ units)
W W W. H T M A G A Z I N E . C O M
14 A Final Word
Who participated in the 2006 POS Scoreboard and what
questions were asked? Look here for a final word on the
study’s methodology why some responses were excluded
CHAIRMAN/CEO from the study.
Gabriele A. Edgell
PRESIDENT
Gerald C. Ryerson
www.htmagazine.com Special Supplement s POS Scoreboard s 3

3. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Top 20 Systems
Foodservice point-of-sale systems continue to elicit a great deal of loyalty and showcase technological
innovation. With more than 400 responses to this year’s study, POS users ranging from owner/operators
of single-unit restaurants to CIOs at major restaurant, casino and hotel companies responded to the
study. Now in its third year, the POS Scoreboard highlights key changes that continue to reshape the
foodservice technology industry.
Clearly, the POS industry is be-
TOTAL POS COMPANY USER coming increasingly diverse. Once the
POINTS VENDOR TOTAL SATISFACTION sole purview of casual-dining chains,
POS solutions can now be found in
87.42 1. Micros Systems 50 37.42 virtually every setting. In recent years,
the emergence of POS solutions de-
87.34 2. Radiant Systems 49 38.34
signed for single-unit restaurants
86.47 3. POSitouch 48 38.47 have helped transform the industry by
85.75 4. Maitre’D 46 39.75 making the POS touch screen the
85.30 5. Squirrel Systems 45 40.30 hallmark of restaurants worldwide.
The juxtaposition of off-the-shelf
83.50 6. Digital Dining 45 38.50
solutions, next to pizza point of sale,
77.91 7. xpient 39 38.91 next to high-end casino solutions
76.67 8. pcAmerica 41 35.67 makes for an odd reading of the POS
72.59 9. Restaurant Manager 36 36.59 Scoreboard. Hospitality Technology
does not portend to suggest which
72.50 10. ParTech 43 29.50
solution has the best golf module or
72.44 11. SilverWare 41 31.44 the easiest interface or the best take-
72.17 12. Panasonic 35 37.17 out solution. Nor would we suggest
72.14 13. Speedline Solutions 33 39.14 which solutions makes the most
sense for your individual foodservice
70.18 14. Torex Retail 31 39.18 operation. Nevertheless, there are
69.89 15. InfoGenesis 35 34.89 more essential elements that foodser-
69.14 16. FuturePOS 33 36.14 vice POS solutions have in common
than separate them. While many of
68.88 17. Volante Systems 31 37.88
these companies may not compete
68.39 18. Aldelo Systems 39 29.39 directly with each other, they all offer
51.32 19. H.S.I. 16 35.32 foodservice point-of-sale solutions.
34.30 20. FireFly Technologies N/A 34.30 This top 20 chart and especially the
rankings that follow, represents the
opinions and feedback we receive from the survey respondents. This feedback—the “User Satisfaction”
score worth 45 points in the overall ranking—is the essential element that helps determine where the POS
companies fall. For the Top 20, we also factor in POS functionality (35 points), number of terminals in-
stalled (10 points) and company revenue (5 points). Of course, how each restaurant company values these
various elements may differ and are part of what makes the POS choice so complex and unique.
4 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com

4. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Top POS Software Systems
SCORE COMPANY VERSION In addition to the point-of-sale software compa-
ny, respondents to the POS Scoreboard were
40.2 1. Digital Dining 7.3 asked to identify the software version they cur-
rently used. To qualify, a top POS system needed
37.3 2. POSitouch 5.2
to have at least five responses. For the second
37.2 3. Torex Retail 3.5 year in a row, Digital Dining version 7.3 ranked
35.8 4. Squirrel Systems One Release 3 first. Squirrel Systems One version 3 made its
second straight appearance as did Maitre’D,
33.9 5. Maitre’D 2005
although with its 2005 release, rather than the
2003 release that was fourth last year. POSitouch
version 5.2 made a return appearance, having
first appeared in the 2004 Scoreboard, but miss-
ing in 2005. And Torex Retail (formerly Savista)
version 3.5 made its debut in the chart this year.
User Satisfaction
SIZE COMPANY SCORE User satisfaction represents the total score for all
nine questions (see Methodology, page 14, for the
More than 1. Digital Dining 38.50 list of all the questions) presented to POS system
users. Each question was worth five points for a
100,000 2. POSitouch 38.47
possible total of 45 points. Once again competi-
Installs 3. Radiant Systems 38.34 tion was extremely tight across all the scores, with
less than two tenths of a point separating the top
three scores in the more than 100,000 installs cat-
20,000 to 1. Squirrel Systems 40.30
egory. The two other categories were similarly
100,000 2. Maitre’D 39.75 competitive, although not quite as tight. Top com-
Installs 3. Torex Retail 39.18 panies tended to have a high average score across
all nine questions. The average user satisfaction
score for the entire study was a solid 35.9, which
Fewer than 1. Speedline Solutions 39.14 translates to a score of 80% across the board.
20,000 2. Volante Systems 37.88 There were some significant changes from the
Installs 3. FuturePOS 36.14 leaders reported in the 2005 Scoreboard. In fact,
of the top three solutions in 2005, only Digital
Dining, Radiant Systems, Torex Retail (Savista) and
Speedline repeated from last year.
6 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com

5. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Overall Performance
SIZE COMPANY SCORE Each year, respondents are asked to indicate the
criteria that is most important when selecting a
More than 1. POSitouch 4.26 POS system, and in previous years overall per-
formance was selected by a wide margin. While
100,000 2. Micros Systems 4.25
in 2006, service and support won out, overall per-
Installs 3. Radiant Systems 4.18 formance remains an important measure of the
general attitude towards POS systems.
Interestingly, the average score for all the re-
20,000 to 1. Torex Retail 4.39
sponses was quite high—4.11, .08 higher than for
100,000 2. Squirrel Systems 4.38 any other question—reflecting a general happi-
Installs 3. InfoGenesis 4.31 ness with POS systems in the industry.
In the more than 100,000 category, the three
top companies from 2005 all repeated, although
Fewer than 1. Volante Systems 4.35
with higher scores. Similarly, Torex (Savista) and
20,000 2. Speedline Solutions 4.30 InfoGenesis repeated as did Volante Systems and
Installs 3. FireFly Technologies 4.29 Speedline Solutions.
Strategic Value
SIZE COMPANY SCORE While foodservice operators may be happy with
their POS systems overall, there is a sense
More than 1. POSitouch 4.09 among restaurateurs that the systems may be
lacking as a strategic asset. Respondents gave
100,000 2. ParTech 4.07
the lowest marks overall in this category, with an
Installs 3. Micros Systems 3.85 average score of only 3.92, which may suggest
that there is room for improvement.
The responses to this question may reflect a
20,000 to 1. xpient 4.40
growing attitude that POS is becoming more of a
100,000 2. Squirrel Systems 4.33 commodity and that differentiation will come from
Installs 3. pcAmerica 4.18 other criteria like sales and support and costs.
Perhaps it should not be a surprise that the most
critical respondents were the largest operators
Fewer than 1. Speedline Solutions 4.33
evaluating the larger POS software companies.
20,000 2. FuturePOS 4.20 As a result, scores for all the companies, including
Installs 3. FireFly Technologies 4.13 the top performers seemed to be a bit depressed
in this category. Among the repeats from last year’s
top performers were Micros Systems, ParTech,
xpient, pcAmerica, and Speedline Solutions.
8 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com

6. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Total Cost of Ownership
SIZE COMPANY SCORE Across the board, scores for total cost of owner-
ship (TCO) were extremely competitive in the sur-
More than 1. POSitouch 4.09 vey. All three categories were separated by no
more than one tenth of a point. With an average
100,000 2. Radiant Systems 4.07
score of 4.01, it is easy to see that this is one of
Installs 3. ParTech 4.00 the most competitive criterion for selecting point-
of-sale software.
Once again, there was a great deal of overlap
20,000 to 1. xpient 4.41
with the top companies from the 2005 Scoreboard.
100,000 2. Squirrel Systems 4.34 POSitouch, ParTech, xpient, pcAmerica, Dinerware
Installs 3. pcAmerica 4.33 and Aldelo (NextPOS) all offered repeat perform-
ances. Dinerware, however, was the only compa-
ny to hold its number one position. Given the close
Fewer than 1. Dinerware 4.38
attention of many restaurant companies to TCO as
20,000 2. Speedline Solutions 4.35 a key measure for software systems, this consis-
Installs 3. Aldelo Systems 4.28 tency is hardly surprising.
Return On Investment
SIZE COMPANY SCORE Return on Investment (ROI) is another classic
measure of value for technology solutions. While
More than 1. POSitouch 4.09 it is less in favor now than it was five years ago,
most restaurant companies still focus on ROI
100,000 2. Digital Dining 4.06
when making any major technology purchase. A
Installs 3. Micros Systems 4.03 significant number of respondents identified ROI
as the most important criterion when selecting
a POS system.
20,000 to 1. Squirrel Systems 4.43
Given that ROI and TCO are often conflated or
100,000 2. xpient 4.41 viewed together, it is interesting that there is not
Installs 3. Torex Retail 4.19 greater overlap between the top performers. In
fact, few of the top companies in the 2006
Scoreboard fared as well last year. Only Micros
Fewer than 1. SilverWare 4.26
Systems, xpient and Speedline Solutions did
20,000 2. Volante Systems 4.25 so. The average score for ROI across the entire
Installs 3. Speedline Solutions 4.23 survey was 4.01 this year, up slightly from 3.98
last year, perhaps reflecting a growing sense of
satisfaction across the industry.
10 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com

7. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
Ease of Upgrade
SIZE COMPANY SCORE According to the 2006 Restaurant Industry
Technology Study, 43% of foodservice companies
More than 1. POSitouch 4.13 plan on replacing their POS system within the next
two years, and another 19% within four years, sig-
100,000 1. Radiant Systems 4.13 nalling a period of significant change for the near
Installs 3. Digital Dining 3.93 future. Clearly, the ability to easily upgrade the cur-
rent system will have significant impact on the
shape of the industry for years to come.
20,000 to 1. Squirrel Systems 4.32
Interestingly, overall scores for ease of up-
100,000 2. pcAmerica 4.27 grade were relatively low, with an average score
Installs 3. Restaurant Manager 4.14 of 3.95. This question also had the broadest
range between a top score of 4.56 for FireFly
Technologies and a low of 3.93 for Digital Dining.
Fewer than 1. FireFly Technologies 4.56 FuturePOS, Restaurant Manager, Digital Dining
20,000 2. Dinerware 4.37 and Radiant Systems all scored well in the 2005
Installs 3. FuturePOS 4.31 Scoreboard on this question as well.
Support and Service
SIZE COMPANY SCORE More than ever, restaurant operators seem con-
cerned with the quality of service and support.
More than 1. Digital Dining 4.36 Seventeen percent of the POS Scoreboard re-
spondents listed service as the single most im-
100,000 2. POSitouch 4.31
portant criteria when selecting a POS system,
Installs 3. Radiant Systems 4.30 or as one respondent wrote, “service, service and
then more service.” Interestingly, the second
most important criteria was reliability or stability
20,000 to 1. Restaurant Manager 4.70
at 12%, both were well ahead of last year’s lead-
100,000 2. Squirrel Systems 4.49 ing response overall performance, which received
Installs 3. Maitre’D 4.27 just 5% of the vote.
As important as service is, it is a good sign
that foodservice operators seem to be happy with
Fewer than 1. FireFly Technologies 4.57
the quality of service they are receiving from their
20,000 2. FuturePOS 4.39 vendors. Restaurant Manager’s 4.70 is the high-
Installs 3. Speedline Solutions 4.36 est score for any company on any question in the
entire survey. The average score of 4.02, more-
over, is the second highest overall (tied with ease
of installation).
12 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com

8. 2006 • RATING TOP POS SYSTEMS
A Final Word
As we discovered in the 2005 Scoreboard restaurant companies of various sizes seem to have dif-
ferent attitudes towards their POS software solutions. In general, smaller restaurant/foodservice
companies (as determined by number of units) tend to be more lenient when rating their POS sys-
tems than larger operations. This pattern is even more pronounced than in 2005, with smaller restau-
rants providing among the highest evaluations in the survey.
ME THODOLOGY
Between May and June 2006, 403 restaurant, hotel, casino and other foodservice operators oper-
ators completed an online survey developed by Hospitality Technology magazine. Respondents
were asked a series of ques-
SIZE COMPANY SCORE RESTAURANT tions about their point-of-sale
RESPONSES software solutions and to pro-
vide an email address for verifi-
Start-up 1. FuturePOS 41.6 12 cation. The survey contained
four questions about the restau-
Restaurants 2. FireFly Technologies 40.3 14
rant/ foodservice company
1-4 units 3. pcAmerica 40.0 12 (how many units does the com-
pany operate, how many units
are you directly responsible for
Small 1. Volante Systems 41.1 49
and what POS vendor and ver-
Chains 2. POSitouch 36.6 118 sion do you use). In addition,
5-50 units 3. Maitre’D 35.6 167 operators were asked to rate
their POS software version on a
scale from 1 (abysmal) to 10
Large 1. Squirrel Systems 35.1 670
(perfect) in the following criteria:
Chains 2. xpient 32.3 1063 overall performance, total cost
51-200 units 3. Radiant Systems 31.6 753 of ownership, return on invest-
ment, strategic value, ease of
upgrading, ease of installation,
Enterprise 1. Micros Systems 35.3 1651 ease of integration, ease of ad-
Chains 2. xpient 35.1 5665 ministration/maintenance and
200+ units 3. Torex Retail 34.6 2883 quality of support and service.
Each of these questions had a
weighted value of five and taken together constitute the user satisfaction rating (See page 6).
As the Scoreboard has grown in prominence, so too has the incentive to cheat or exaggerate
scores. In an effort to make sure the Scoreboard is fair, accurate and beyond reproach, we took a
number of steps to ensure a level playing field. Respondents that were identified as POS re-
sellers or vendors were eliminated. In addition, any scores deemed exceptionally high or low that
could not be attributed directly to a recognized restaurant company (via email address) were also
removed from the survey—scores averaging higher than 43.0 (95%) or lower than 15.0 (33%). It is
our belief that there are no perfect POS systems out there, yet there were a disproportionate num-
ber of perfect and near perfect scores. Nearly every POS company had scores disqualified as a re-
sult, though undoubtedly, the effect was stronger on some company scores more than others. In
future years HT will continue introduce more safeguards to ensure accuracy and fairness.
14 s POS Scoreboard s Special Supplement www.htmagazine.com