Chapter 3: Workarounds and the shadow store
Two in three associates track stock through channels the system can’t see
When the system is wrong, associates build their own record, on paper or in a group chat. It holds a version of the store no system or AI can see, and more technology doesn’t make it go away.
When the shelf disagrees with the system, associates keep the store running their own way.
Chapter 1 showed that around seven in ten associates fix the record in the system when it’s wrong, by correcting it themselves (49%) or raising a stock adjustment (44%). This chapter is about what happens alongside and instead of that: the parallel channels associates use to keep track of stock when the system is wrong. Two in three who act on it use at least one the system never sees.
The most current picture of the store often lives in those channels, which means the official record, the one every dashboard and AI model reads, is the least complete version of the truth. The corrections that would fix it are sitting in a notebook or a chat thread.
2 in 3
Associates who take action when the system is wrong and use at least one unofficial method to track stock.
4 in 10
Associates who take action when the system is wrong and never use the official system to track it.
:format(webp))
Your most accurate inventory system might be a group chat. My work took me to several stores recently where that was the "quickest path to done" for taxed retail associates. They either don’t have the time or capacity to use the tools, or the group chat is what will most immediately help. Two in three associates track stock outside the official system when it’s wrong, and four in ten keep records the system never sees at all. So every dashboard and AI model reads the least complete version of your store. That’s not associates breaking the rules. That’s associates doing their jobs with what they’ve been given.
Anne Mezzenga, CEO and Founder, Retail Field Report
What associates do when the system is wrong
When the store and the system disagree, the first move is often unofficial.
How stock tasks arrive, by how much associates trust the data
| Segments | Fully prioritized | Partially prioritized | No order or pieced together | No stock tasks |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| All associates (overall) | 36 | 26 | 25 | 13 |
| Associates who trust the data completely | 45 | 17 | 26 | 12 |
| Associates who don't trust the data at all | 22 | 15 | 23 | 40 |
Survey question: “When you receive stock-related tasks or alerts from your employer (restocking, price changes, expiry checks, gaps on shelf), how do they arrive?” Split by how much associates trust the stock information.
Three in ten (29%) associates make an informal note. Nearly a quarter (23%) work around it and carry on. Seven percent do nothing, because there’s no time during a busy shift.
The system isn’t much help in deciding what to do first, either. Only 36% say their stock tasks arrive fully prioritized, with the most urgent flagged.
A quarter of associates get partial task prioritization, 18% get a list with no order, 6% piece them together from different channels, and 13% receive no stock tasks at all.
An unordered list doesn’t survive contact with a busy shift: the fastest seller runs out while the associate works down from the top, and alerts that have already been fixed sit alongside ones that haven’t.
Associates who trust their data completely are twice as likely to get fully prioritized tasks as those who don’t trust it at all (45% against 22%): the system that tells them what matters is the one they believe.
Associates asked what they’d change about their stores
More intuitive communication or task prioritisation for daily restocking.
Store Associate, UK, Grocery Supermarket
Having a way to update incorrect inventory without having to go through another person.
Store Associate, US, DIY
Keeping everyone in communication, of things that are missing, or things that are placed in the wrong spot.
Store Associate, US, Grocery Hypermarket.
What Scandit has seen in stores
In one grocer's store intelligence solution deployment, more than half of the shelf gaps captured each day were on products the system still showed as in stock.
Some of that stock was in the backroom, and some wasn’t there at all. But every gap was a mismatch between the shelf and the record, the kind that would once have been noted on paper or in a chat, if at all. Captured at the shelf, each one became a task or a data correction the system could act on the same day.
The shadow store
Where the truth really lives isn’t always the official system.
How associates track stock when the system is wrong
| Method | Share |
|---|---|
| The official system | 58 |
| Paper notes | 28 |
| Team group chat | 25 |
| Photos on their phone | 21 |
| Personal notes app | 20 |
| In their head (memory) | 17 |
Survey question: “What do you use to keep track of stock when the system is wrong?” Asked only of associates who take some action when the system doesn’t match the shelf. Multiple answers allowed.
Of the associates who take some action when the system is wrong, two in three (68%) use at least one method the system never sees, and four in ten (42%) never use the official system for it at all.
The unofficial methods are low-tech and personal: paper notes lead (28%), then a team group chat (25%), photos on their phone (21%), a personal notes app (20%), and 17% simply keep it in their head.
For the 58% who do update the official system, the correction lands.
For the 42% who don’t, it exists in a notebook or a chat thread and nowhere else, and the system catches up the slow way, at the next count or the next delivery, if at all.
That’s not a discipline problem. It’s where the truth goes when the official channel can’t hold it. Until then every order, pick list, and replenishment decision runs on the version that doesn’t know.
:format(webp))
When associates keep their own notes, group chats and phone photos, that is not only a compliance and security problem, but it is the clearest sign that the official system can't keep up with the store. Some of the best information in the building is sitting in somebody's phone. The answer isn't telling people to stop. It's giving them a faster way to capture what they see at the shelf, so it goes straight into the record where the rest of the business, and every AI tool, can use it.
Greg Buzek, President, IHL Group
The view from HQ. Asked what associates should do when the data is wrong.
Prepare a proper document on the mismatch, find out the reason, and then initiate the action appropriately.
Digital Transformation Manager
New hires run the store on paper
The newest staff are the least connected to the system.
How associates track stock when the system is wrong
Newer associates use the system less and paper more
| Tool | 1 to 3 years in retail | 15+ years in retail |
|---|---|---|
| Official system | 51 | 66 |
| Paper notes | 32 | 22 |
Survey question: “What do you use to keep track of stock when the system is wrong?” Asked only of associates who take corrective action. Shown by years worked in retail, for the two most-used methods only.
Associates with one to three years working in retail use the official system to track stock just over half the time (51%) and paper notes a third of the time (32%).
For associates with fifteen years or more experience, those numbers are 66% use the official system and 22% use paper notes.
Three in four of the newer less experienced group use some unofficial method; for associates at fifteen-plus years, it is just over half.
Newer associates do what they were shown, and chapter 5 shows that for most of them that was a walkthrough or a colleague.
The informal method comes with the job. The official one comes with time.
:format(webp))
A stock discrepancy is a symptom, not a diagnosis. Corrections require the right code and often management approval under the four-eye principle. Detection, investigation and authorised correction are separate stages, and while a case is unresolved employees may need to hold provisional information outside the official stock record. The question is how shelf observations can enter established workflows so fewer findings remain in the shadow store.
Sebastian Rennack, Independent Retail Analyst & Consultant
More technology, same workarounds
:format(webp))
More technology (from handhelds and shelf labels to self-checkout and shelf cameras, listed in chapter 6) hasn’t meant fewer workarounds.
Associates in stores with four or more technologies in use are as likely to keep unofficial records (68%) as those with one (63%).
The shadow store isn’t a sign of too few systems. It’s what happens when the systems can’t see what the associate can.
What this means for AI in store
Many retailers want a digital twin of the store: a live model accurate enough to run decisions on.
What most of them have is a twin of the record. It mirrors the system, gaps included, and the corrections that would make it true are sitting in a notebook or a group chat.
Adding more of the same technology doesn’t empty the shadow store. Associates keep unofficial records whether their store runs one of the seven store technologies we asked about or all of them. More tools haven’t given what associates know an official place to go.
The shadow store isn't a sign of too few systems and tools deployed. It's what happens when none of them can see what the associate can. Retailers need to deploy technology that is really able to see and act on the state of the store, not layer on more tools that work from the same inaccurate inventory record.