PREFACE
September 11, 2000
William Hodgkiss, Vice President for Business
Lawrence University
122 S. Drew St.
Appleton, WI 54911
Dear Mr. Hodgkiss:
The Cornyn Fasano Group (CFG) has completed its study of the campus dining program at Lawrence University and developed a Strategic Plan that reflects the input of students, faculty and administration. The Strategic Plan is contained herein.
This plan reflects a great deal of work and commitment on the part of the University Residential Life Task Force, The Campus Dining Strategic Planning Committee and the dining staff. We want to express our sincere thanks to you, the committee and the students, faculty and staff of Lawrence University for their cooperation during this study. It is a pleasure to work with such a concerned and focused group of individuals. If we can answer any questions or be of further assistance to the University, do not hesitate to call us.
Sincerely,
Joyce Coons Fasano
Principal
The Cornyn Fasano Group, Inc.
Fremont 1, Suite 113,
1750 Northwest Naito Parkway
Portland, Oregon 97209-2530
STRATEGIC ACTION PLAN
CAMPUS DINING SERVICES
LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY
I. INTRODUCTION
This Strategic Action Plan for Campus Dining at Lawrence University (University) is the culmination of a major study effort on the part of the University Residential Life Task Force. The Task Force was appointed by the Board of Trustees to study the entire Residential Life Program, including campus dining, to determine the best course of action for the future. A subgroup of the Task Force researched the current status of campus dining, toured other campus dining programs, and identified a list of the major challenges facing the Campus Dining Department. Once the challenges were identified, it was determined that an objective outside food service consultant should be retained to both validate the Task Force's work and provide the expertise necessary to define realistic solution sets in the form of a campus dining strategic plan. Equally important was to determine how those solution sets would best be implemented.
II. PROJECT OBJECTIVES/METHODOLOGY
The Cornyn Fasano Group (CFG) was retained to coordinate the development of a campus dining strategic plan that would address the findings of the Residence Life Task Force. CFG used the following methodology to accomplish its work:
The results of CFG's work are presented herein.
III. FINDINGS
CFG found that the study conducted by the Task Force had identified most of the valid challenges facing Campus Dining at Lawrence University. CFG also concurred that the Task Force alone could not identify or implement the changes that would address those challenges. CFG recommended that the Task Force be expanded to a Strategic Planning Committee to include key campus dining management, the Vice President for Business Affairs, a Human Resources representative, major catering users, and facilities staff. The goal was to bring to the group the expertise of those individuals who would ultimately either implement or be primary users of campus dining services. A complete list of the Strategic Planning Committee is presented in the Appendices along with copies of the Task Force's report and CFG's Discussion Paper.
A summary of the primary challenges as identified by the Task Force and validated by CFG along with some additional issues identified by CFG are as follows:
TASK FORCE IDENTIFIED CHALLENGES:(1)
There is a lack of ongoing communications and collaboration among the various food services. Regular communication among mid-level managers (i.e., within Downer and between Downer, Union Retail Operations, Lucinda's and Catering Services) would encourage a "team" approach so that creative ideas could emerge and work could be shared more evenly across campus.
An innovative and comprehensive vision for food service appears to be missing. We perceive a need for a manager who is "out front," that is to say, visible and accessible -- a manager who seeks out and welcomes student input and responds in a timely manner to students' needs. We would like to see management adopt a "customer service" approach (i.e., an outward orientation rather than an orientation that looks primarily to inner function). This would mean that both the director and other midlevel managers would be known on sight to students, would frequently share meals with them and would actively seek out and respond to student feedback.
It appears that the food service budget may not be adequate to provide the quality of food students desire (even though variety is present) or to fulfill all the staffing needs. We note that catering now falls under the food service budget, but we do not know what impact this has had on the food service that students receive.
Facilities need to be significantly upgraded. The physical limitations of Downer prevent the kind of service that today's students expect. At present, Downer functions with one kitchen in the basement, limited storage space, old and sometimes broken equipment, one elevator to transport food to two floors as well as transport dishes, glasses and silverware to and from the basement. The old-fashioned service lines present multiple problems that include excessive time spent in lines, the need for multiple dishes in each line, staff spread too thinly. Colman has improved with the more innovative use of Lucinda's.
There is never enough staff. Too much turnover due, in part, to low salaries and no benefits for part-timers means that someone must spend most of his or her time hiring and training new employees. There appears to be not enough staff to allow for meaningful communication with students concerning their needs.
While students appreciate the increased meal-plan options and variety offered by Downer, Colman and the grill, they still feel that many of their food-service needs are not met. We feel it is imperative to increase flexibility and attentiveness to students' varied needs. In particular, meal hours need to be lengthened to accommodate student athletes, students in music ensembles and student teachers.
Students today are extremely cost-conscious. They want to feel that they are getting their money's worth. If a student invites a family member or friend to dine with them, for example, he or she wants to be able to use his or her meal-plan or debit card to pay. In short, we lack a total plan that would allow students maximum flexibility and value for their money.
A more health-conscious student body looks for meals that reflect today's changing life styles. There are also more students who want to cook part or all of their meals. There are more vegetarians and vegans who insist on separate preparation and service.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS IDENTIFIED BY CFG
There is not a clearly defined and enforced system of accounting for all meals served by Campus Dining. Too many people have access to meals without any recording or sign-in process to document the actual meals served. When so much of the student meal plan dollars are expended to feed other people, it is virtually impossible for the Department management team to maintain a consistent level of quality food and service for students. Without this accountability, the staff also cannot produce accurate meal consumption, average plate cost, participation ratios and other statistical reports necessary to make effective management decisions.
There is a lack of on-going communication between the user groups and dining management. The Task Force and Strategic Planning Committee will be dissolved but some form of communications/advisory group needs to function on an ongoing basis.
The current state of the equipment is due in part to the lack of an ongoing equipment reserve fund designed to add/replace the equipment necessary to prepare food in accordance with current trends. The fact that there has not been a major renovation in many years also contributes to the state of the equipment and therefore the ability to meet student food preferences.
The manner in which funds are shifted to the living groups increases the burden for the basic meal plan costs to the students who are not in living groups and ultimately increases the qualitative discrepancy between the meals available to students in living groups and those in the residence halls. Any plan to expand the number of students in living groups will further erode the base revenue necessary to support the dining program.
There is a lack of a clear vision for campus dining that would serve to direct the decision making process relative to meal plans, menus and other dining related functions.
The only source of revenue to the Department budget has been the meal plan dollars; yet that budget is used to cover all catering, Residence Life Staff meals and guests of the University. The current allocation and use of board plan revenue results in a system whereby students do not perceive value for the dollars they spend. A more clearly defined means of paying for catered events on campus must be adopted in order to rectify this situation.
IV. CAMPUS DINING VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
The first step in the process of addressing Campus Dining is the development of a clear statement of vision and objectives. The statement developed as a result of the Campus Dining Planning Workshop is presented below:
LAWRENCE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS DINING VISION
Lawrence University seeks to provide a quality campus dining program that meets the needs of its students, faculty, staff, alumni and visitors. Toward that end, campus dining will:
- Support the residential campus mission through community development among the students, faculty and staff.
- Provide a variety of consistently creative, healthful, high-quality, freshly prepared foods served in an attractive manner.
- Provide dining facilities that are comfortable, attractive and adaptable to evolving food service trends.
- Provide a comprehensive meal program that affords students the greatest possible flexibility and convenience with respect to dining options and hours of service.
- Include a menu mix that provides basic "comfort foods" and an educational opportunity with respect to innovative and new foods, and responds to dietary needs and interests.
- Provide nutritional information and foster healthful dining habits.
- Be financially and operationally efficient.
- Demonstrate a fair and equitable price:value relationship.
- Provide a relaxing, inviting atmosphere and positive dining experience.
- Provide a professional catering program that fulfills the variety of campus needs.
- Provide friendly, responsive, customer-oriented service.
V. RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to accomplish its vision for campus dining, the University will need to address both short and long term issues. Because a new facility will not become a reality for several years, it is important to make interim changes that will increase student, faculty, staff and alumni satisfaction. The following is a list of long term recommendations directed at each of the primary goals in the vision statement. Where appropriate, short term interim recommendations are included as well.
Interim/Immediate Recommendation:
This plan should be provided at different levels of buy-in to students: The full plan of 175 meals plus $150 cash at the Grill per term, a modified plan with 125 meals plus $150 cash and a plan for living group students.
To keep students from running out of meals by being "too nice" to other people, limit the number of guest meals in any term to 6 (that enables them to have a weekend guest or to use the plan for periodic guests). Also, students should sign up for a meal plan at the beginning of the year with the clear understanding that they will have a two week window each term to change the meal plan for the next term. If they miss that opportunity, then they remain on the plan until the next term. Every year they would sign up again, indicating a plan for the year under the same terms and conditions. Once a plan is changed, it is changed until the end of the year or the student makes another change.
A limited plan of 75 meals per term (one meal a day plus five during finals week) and, a fraternity/living group plan of 50 meals per term. Fraternity students would be charged for a full meal plan by the University. The cost of 50 meals to eat in the dining hall with other students would be allocated to Campus Dining and the remainder of the meal plan fee would go to the fraternities. There would be no options/exceptions for fraternity members. This helps accomplish the vision of a truly residential campus community. In reality they could use the meals anytime during the term for any meals, including guest meals.
Long Term Recommendation:
The way of the future and certainly the way to accomplish your vision of a seamless dining program for students is to adopt a declining balance meal plan. Until such time as you have new facilities to offer more options to spend the dollars on specific cooked to order foods, it is not advisable to adopt a more extensive declining balance program.
Interim/Immediate Recommendation:
Students can make a sack lunch to take with them and their meal card will be swiped for one meal. This will enable those in music programs and other activities that meet at noon to have access to a lunch meal. In order to minimize the chance of spoilage, condiments such as mayonnaise should be in individual single serving packets such as would be found at a fast food restaurant Students should be encouraged to use refrigeration for sack meals if it is available and cautioned not to hold a lunch/sandwich more than six hours before consumption.
Long Term Recommendation:
Several programs have proven successful for other campuses. Some serve a late night breakfast at this time, others do pizzas and/or submarine sandwiches, yet others serve dessert type items such as ice cream sundaes. The Department might want to have different things each night of the week (i.e., Monday and Thursday nights are always "late night breakfast", Tuesday and Friday are Pizza nights, and Wednesday is sub sandwich night.) The University needs to first ascertain what satisfies its students. The key is to keep it simple, limit the menu and be flexible. You might find that Friday night is not necessary because students are involved in social activities, but Sunday night is popular. This will take some analysis and judgment on the part of the food service staff and food committee.
Immediate Recommendations:
Weekly meetings for the retail, Lucinda's and Downer managers were put in place this past year. Supervisory staff should be included in a minimum of a monthly meeting to make sure that their ideas and comments are heard (they have the most direct contact with students) and to inform them of pending changes, new services and other items.
It is important to keep communication lines open between the Department and the rest of the campus community. Viable options might be a quarterly news bulletin, an interactive web site and/or other means that both inform the campus of changes in the program and allow for feed back from the campus. Articles in the Alumni bulletin and a column in the campus newspaper are also effective means of communicating. It has been proven that a highly visible, active campus dining management team helps to position a program to obtain the resources and support it needs to meet its goals and objectives.
A standing committee should be formed with representative of students, faculty, staff, catering users, alumni and any other "user" groups. The committee should be co-chaired by one of the rotating members and the food service director. The "advisory" function should be clearly understood by all members. This group would, over time, provide ongoing operational input/ideas, serve as a communications link to the various campus segments, assist in planning for the new facilities, and other food service related issues that require campus input.
With the exception of the food service director and V.P. for Business, the committee members should rotate off every two or three years. Students will most likely be on a shorter term than some of the faculty and staff. The rotation should be set up so that no more than one-half of the committee changes in any given year. The Department should set aside a budget each year for potential travel to at least two or three other campuses by some of the committee members to broaden the perspective on campus dining in general.
Interim/Immediate Recommendations:
A student preference survey is not a "how well are we doing" survey but rather one that address what students like to eat, where/what they eat when they go off campus, how much they spend and other information that helps direct where the program should be to better meet student needs. Students' preferences will change with each new class of students and they will change as students move through the four years. For that reason this should be done each and every year.
For example, there might be an assortment of Teriyaki Chicken bits, marinated beef tips, sliced pork loin, and sauces such a Teriyaki, Thai, sweet and sour, etc., from which students can assemble their own combination. More than one rice cooker, one with white and one with brown rice, will provide additional variety. The meats and sauces can vary a lot and are a way to introduce new ethnic foods/tastes to the students. Most of the sauces are available commercially. The meats for now would have to be done in the kitchen.
An Impinger or other pizza oven that could produce a more "real" pizza would be a great asset to the program.
A ventless fryer such as the Giles would enhance the quality of the french fries.
It is probably a "Wisconsin" thing to have cheese on everything. However, your students come from elsewhere and there needs to be items without cheese if you are to meet the needs of your vegans and those who wish to be low-fat vegetarian and/or control fat intake overall.
Attempt to use these cookers with a different menu item at dinner each night. Make it fun to wait in line. One campus has trivia questions posted along the induction cooker line some nights and "information" relative to the "cuisine du jour" at other times. For example, one night was a Tuscan Seafood Saute served on pasta. They used enlarged reprints of Tuscan food from magazines and cookbooks. They were mounted on colored poster board and sitting on wooden easels along the queue line. The next time they did a Tuscan-based meal theme they had the trivia questions taken from the previous time's posters. Yet another time, they brought in a chef from a local Italian Restaurant who prepared a Tuscan pasta dish. The salads that night were set up like an antipasto bar and they also tossed Caesar Salads to order. The staff had fun with it as did the students. The salads were simply done on a couple of banquet tables draped with red and white checked cloth.
Specialty salads to order as entrees are a successfull item on many campuses. A wilted spinach, Caesar, Caesar with Chicken, oriental chicken, and similar salads. Again, it can be done in the dining room. It will require some attractive bowls and containers for oils, vinegars, cheese and other items. Serve the salads with a bread du jour (wedges of foccacia, cornmeal muffins, pretzel rolls and other selections) that matches the salad of the day.
Long Term Recommendation:
Based on student preferences surveys, begin the process of defining the operating program for new facilities. A preference survey does not monitor how well people like what is happening now but rather quantifies their current dining habits, spending habits and other issues that help you understand what the students want, and what they actually do when going out to eat (i.e., what do they select, how much do they pay and so forth.)
Immediate Recommendations:
In order to run an efficient operation this is a critical step. Each area must stand alone. If one cost center is used to subsidize another, it is a decision the University has to make based on a full knowledge of the situation. That is, if one area is to be subsidized, it should be a conscious decision and not one of a lack of knowledge.
Long Term Recommendation:
No one, even dining staff, should eat without being accounted for somewhere in the system. It is standard practice to allow staff to eat when they work in a food establishment. It is also important to account for all meals/food served. Staff should have a meal card that is recorded when they stop for their meal break. They would not pay for the meal as it is part of their compensation. It is important to limit staff consumption of high food cost items such as bottled beverages, packaged chips and whole meat items. In some universities staff members have a meal card with a fixed number of meals per week (usually five if they work five days) and the card is swiped each time they eat In this way there is a dollar value assigned to the food served to dining staff.
If key University staff such as the Dean of Students or the Director of Residential Life are to have access to the dining room they too should have to use a card that is swiped each time they eat on campus. While the cost of that card/meal may be charged off as a cost of doing business or to another campus budget, the important thing is that it is accounted for as such. If too many people are receiving meal privileges and that cost is being covered out of funds other than student meal plan dollars, it erodes the dollars available to spend on student meals.
Long Term Recommendation:
Interim Recommendation:
Some examples might include induction cookers, yogurt machines, panini grills, less institutional steam table inserts (crockery is available to fit steam tables), high speed conveyor oven (i. e. Impinger or equal). This type of equipment is generally not available for lease or if it is, the cost is prohibitive. Since all of it would be used in a renovation, it would be wise to purchase the equipment outright.
Long Term Recommendation:
Food Service derives its name from the two most important components. It is critical not to leave the service out of the equation. No matter how good the food is, if the service is not at the same level, you will still have unhappy customers.
The policy should include guidelines on how to handle specific situations, including customer praises as well as their complaints/suggestions. Every employee should be required to read the policy and sign off that they have read and agree to the Department's policies.
This plan may be completely customized or a modified adaptation of one from NACUFS, the National Restaurant Association or another entity. The program will take some time to develop and must be implemented in such a way that ALL personal receive training before they work in the operations. There should be annual training components/refresher programs for the permanent staff and a quick and easy program for student workers. In particular, the student program may be a series of videos but should also include a review of the Lawrence University Dining Services "Service Policies."
Interim Recommendation:
Long Term Recommendation:
This is the long term solution to meeting students dining needs but again, is not financially feasible in the current facilities.
Interim Recommendations:
VI. PROGRESS REPORTS AND EVALUATION
It is important to have a process in place to monitor the progress that the Department makes each year and to identify new program goals. Industry people often refer to food service as a moving target. Customer/student preferences change, new products are available, new equipment makes it possible to do new things, and a multitude of other changes make it impossible to identify the perfect dining program. Whatever is identified in a report one year will, undoubtedly, need to be updated in subsequent years. The point is not to be stagnant but to be continually assessing the program and planning modifications that result in a vibrant campus dining program.
Meetings and Department walk-throughs during the year will help to monitor the operation and its progress. However, before the end of the 2000-2001 academic year, a more formal assessment should be made of the qualitative aspects of the program. A process that would remain objective and positive would be to ask one member of the original task force, one student and one outside party to conduct a one day intense quality audit on a typical day during-April. The process should include a couple of focus groups with students, a walk through in all the facilities during each meal period, a review of the financial data (the student might be exempt from this one as it sometimes causes more harm than good). There should also be a review of the recommendations adopted from this report. The day would culminate with a meeting with the larger committee and a final exit review summary with the Department staff.
This type of review process is conducted annual on some campuses, others do a review on a two year rotation. Given the challenges at Lawrence University and the plans to build a new facility, an annual review process would be advisable for the foreseeable future.
(1) Source: Residential Life Task Force Sub-Committee