WI

\

I
I

\IIHHII

l1

MINIMUM

I
\

 

AN ANALYSIS OF MENU SELECT NITY FACTORS
IN SELECTED RESIDENCE HALL FOOD SERVICES

Thesis for H39 Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Chuck Yim Gee
1958

 

 

 

AN ANALYSIS OF MENU SELECTIVITY FACTORS IN

SELECTED RESIDENCE HALL FOOD SERVICES

by
Chuck Y1m.Gee -’

A Thesis
Submitted to the College of Business and Public Service
Michigan State University of Agriculture and.
Applied Science in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts

Ibpartment of Hotel, Restaurant and
General Institutional Management

1958

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S

The author is sincerely grateful to Dr. Ralph
D. Wilson and Dr. 5. Earl Thompson, of the School of
Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional management at
Michigan State university, for their help and encour-
agement in writing this thesis. Without their guid-
ance and many suggestions, the completion of the proj-
ect would not have been possible.

Acknowledgments are also due the many housing
officers, food service administrators, and business
managers of the colleges and universities which parti-

cipated in the food service survey.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTH O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C O O

I.

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Historical Background of Residence Hall
FOOdSemiceoooooooooooo

Present Situation . . . . . . . . . . .

Some Aspects of Residence Hall Menu Planning.

The Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Statement of the problem. . . . . . .
Importance of the study . . . . . . .
Delimitations of the study . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Definitions of Terms Used . . . . . . .

Single-choice menu . . . . . . . . .

-iiMulti-choice menu . . . . . . . . . .

The Survey Procedures . . . . . . . . .
Scepe and method . . . . . . . . . .
Preparation of the questionnaire . .
Preparation of the letter . . . . . .

Questionnaire returns . . . . . . . .

Tabulations and analysis of the results
Identification of the respondents . . .
Distribution of the respondents by area

d1v1810ns O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Organization of the Remainder of the Thesis

. PAGE
. 1
. 1
. 2
3
. s .
. s/
. 6/
. 7
. a
. 9
. 9
. 9
. 9
. 9
. 10
. 11
. 12
. 12
. 12
- 1h

CHAPTER

II. A SURVEY OF THE RELATED LITERATURE . . . . .
Literature on menu Planning and Selectivity
ME7The case for using the single-choice menu

/ L

The case for using the multi-cheice menu

Literature on Studies of Food Habits . . .

III. MENU SELECTIVITY’AND FACTORS RELATED TO COSTS
State Supported and Privately Endowed

Institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Size Influence on Menu Used . . . . . . . .

anu Preference of the Administrators . . .

Labor Costs in the Service and Production of

Food . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Speed of service through cafeteria line .
meals produced per employee-hour expended
Per cent of labor costs to total income .
Food Costs and Production Control . . . . .
Food production forecast and left over

- food control . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Number of items, meals, and weekly frequency

on which.choice is allowed . . . . . .

Daily raw food budget allowance per student .

Per cent of food cost to total income . .

iv

PAGE
18
18
18
20
21
27

28’
29
32

35
35
37
39

RI

#3
is
h?
#9

CHAPTER PAGE
IV. MENU SELECTIVITY AND FACTORS RELATED TO
STUDENT SATISFACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Communication with Students in.Rbnu.Planning
and Its Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Methods of communication . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Effectiveness of communication.methods . . . . 55
Student Absenteeism. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Type of community in which the institution
is located . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Average per cent of student absenteeism
per term. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Abnormal absenteeism periods . . . . . . . . . 59
Cultural Contribution of the Residence Hall
Food Service Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMIVENDATIONS . . e e e 65
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
BIBLIOGRAPHY.........-.............73
APPENDIX........................75

TABLE
I.

II.

III.
IV.

VI.
VII.

VIII.

X.
XI.
XII.
XIII.
XIV.

XVI.
XVII.

LIST OF TABLES

Classification of the Respondents by
Positions Held According to Menu Type . .
Classification of 11h Institutions by
Regional Area and Menu Type . . . . . . .
Financial Support of the Institutions . . .
Comparison of Menus by Yes-No Responses
to Size Influence . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Men and Whmen.Students Fed Daily
During the School'Year Classified by
Yes-No Responses to Size Influence . . .
Menu Preference of 11h Administrators . . .
Reasons Given for Menu Preference of
108 Administrators . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of Students Served per Minute
Through Cafeteria Line . . . . . . . . .
Food Production Practices . . . . . . . . .
Per Cent of Labor Costs to Total Income . .
Food Production Forecast Mbthods . . . . .
Number of Items on which Choice is Offered.
Meals on which.Choice is Offered . . . . .
Weekly Frequency on which Choice is Allowed
Daily Raw Food Budget Allowed per Student .
Per Cent of Food Cost to Total Income . . .

Mbthods of Student Communications . . . . .

PAGE

16
29

30

32
33

3h

36
38
39
A2

MS
is
ll»?
he
Sh

TABLE
XVIII.

XIX.

Effectiveness of Communication Method

as Determined by Plate waste Observation.

Type of Community in Which Institution
is Located
Average Per Cent of Student Absenteeism
Per Term

Abnormal Absenteeism Periods During the

Term

0

0

vii

PAGE

56

58

.60

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Historical Background 9£_

Residence Hall Food Service

Institutional food service in colleges and universities
had their beginnings in the twelfth century when hostels
existed at the various colleges and universities on the con-
tinent and in England. The students managed the hostels in
EurOpe, but in England, the hostels were endowed by wealthy
men to provide room and board for students unable to pay them
costs. In the beginning the universities had slight control
over the hostels, but eventually assumed complete control
over the houses, and with this shift of authority, the
universities assumed the responsibility for the living con-
ditions of their students.1

The colonial colleges in America originated as counter-
parts of Oxford and Cambridge Universities in England. Resi-
dence halls with dining facilities were included as part of
the responsibility of the administration. In spite of the
fact that the clergyman, in charge of the early colleges,
performed their duties thriftily and diligently, students did
not always approve. As interest deveIOped in the methods of
German education, which did not include housing reaponsibilities,

S

1Bessie B. West and LeVelle Meod, Food Service in Insti-
tutions. (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1993), pp. 3-6.

 

the interest in student housing declined in the American
colleges. Feeding and housing were then assumed by frater-
nities and sororities not completely under the jurisdiction
of the college administration. As a result, complications
deveIOped because of the lack of adequate food provision for
students.2

The twentieth century shifted from the "laissez-faire"
policy of the nineteenth century. Increasingly, colleges are
recognizing their responsibilities for the physical and social
well-being of the students. Residence halls with food services
Operated by trained personnel and dietitians became common
practice. Today it is also common practice to use food
service facilities as training laboratories for classes in
institutional management. This has been a contributing fac-
tor insstablishing the high requirements demanded in college
3

food service directors.

Present Situation

 

Institutional feeding which includes industrial plants
and hOSpitals, college residence hall’ food service has many
problems different from.those d‘the general food service
industries such as hotel dining rooms, restaurants, drive-ins,
and specialty houses. The public is free to select whichever
food establishment that suits its fancy, in an economy

 

2Ibid.

BIbide pp 0 7-8

subscribing to a free-enterprise system.where profit goes

to those who best serve a "need." However, for all practical
purposes, there is a monopoly in the college residence hall
food service. The student under a contract feeding plan has
no choice as where he will eat, what he will eat, or when
he will eat, unless he has enough money and time to patronize
outside establishmentsfj>Under this plan, food service is
provided to him.by the college at a relatively lower cost than
he could possibly obtain elsewhere, and at hours compatible
with class hours.

Despite the fact that the college may enjoy a "monopoly"
in providing residence hall food service by contractual agree-
ment with the student, it may still have financial problems.
Since lower prices are charged, its food service operation
must be relatively more efficient than commercial food operations
to produce a net income. A net income is necessary to the col-
lege that has a huge investment in itsadining units and
kitchens, financed by long-term.debt. KThe price structure,
however, is not easily changed to meet rising costs, and
administrators seek to eliminate all unnecessary expenses. Cost
control, rather than price change, is the philosOphy of many
institutions that place service to the student above all other

considerations.'\

)

Some Aspects of Residence Hall Menu Planning

 

Some of the more important facets of residence hall food

service arezu

l. The students come from.many parts of the country,
all with different tastes and food habits, predetermined
frequently by national and religious traditions.

2. There is a certain monotonous element to eating in
the same dining room.day in, day out, which must be offset by
menu variety. Menu variety, in turn, is dependent upon avail-
ability, seasonality, cost, dietetic values, and acceptability
of the food items.

3. Men and women students have different diet habits;
the menu must be flexible in planning to allow for change.

A. Because of its universal nature, food becomes a com-
mon tOpic for conversation. It is impossible to please
everyone at all times, and unless effective communications
are set up between students and food service personnel, un-
healthy and nonconstructive criticisms result.

5. General university policies sometimes complicate
personnel organization and purchasing. The food service ad-
ministrator may not be able to employ the best personnel to
meet his organization needs (this includes the use of part-
time students), or take advantage of the best buys on the
market. This is particularly true of small private institu-
tions where funds are tightly controlled.

6. Accurate prediction of student meal attendance is

hAdapted from Dorotha L. Ferrey, "Menu Planning," College

and University Business, 7:29-31, December, 19h9.

5.

difficult. Waste occurs from.sma11 mistakes in forecasting.
Too many variables affect the forecast, e.g., sport events,
weather, fraternity functions, examination periods, the daily
flggg.

7. In comparison with commercial enterprises where
there is a larger margin between prices and costs, the prices
chargeifor meals in residence halls are low. Costs must be

carefully controlled to yield a net income.

These above factors are elements to be taken into consid-
eration in.menu planning. The menu serves as the basis for
control in the food operation, and reflects the ability of
management to manipulate costs, student preference, and plan-

ning in general.
The Problem

The food service program of a residence hall is planned
around the menu. The menu determines such important factors
as kitchen layout, production techniques, and service in
planning institutional food operations.S At the same time,
(1) The refrigerator, (2) the market, (3) the calendar, (k)
the clock, (5) the clientele, (6) the kitchen, (7) the appearance
of the food, and (8) the price are important considerations

that will affect the menu.6

 

5Mary K. Bloetjes, "Layouts for Food Service," College
and Upiversity_Business, 19:50, August, 1955.

6JosephBrodner, Reward Carlson, Henry Maschal,Profitable
Food gnd Beverage Operation. (New York: Ahrens Publishing

Company, Inc., 1955). PP. 30-38.

 

 

Administrators setting up a food service program for
the residence hall face a problem deciding whether or not to
allow menu choice. Two major questions are raised above all
other considerations: (1) Are food and labor costs increased
in permitting selections?; (2) Are students more satisfied
when they are permitted a choice, or doesznlectivity make any
difference to them? Keeping within the price structure of
the food service, while attempting to please the majority of
students is a dual problem to the menu-maker.7 However, no
attempt has been made to isolate the factor of selectivity,
and to identify the effects of selectivity upon the above

aspects of menu planning.

Statement 93 the ppoblem. The purpose of this study is

 

to determine the relationship of the selectivity factor in
menus of college and university residence halls as selectivity
pertains to (1) food and labor costs, with their related
variables; and (2) student satisfaction, with its related

variables.

N5

 

Ipportance pf the study. “A study of residence hall food
service is particularly significant in periods of rapid
expansion in higher educational facilities and rising costs
of education. Food service is a major problem.in residence

hall administration because of the difficulty of satisfying

7Interview, Mildred Jones, January IN, 1958; from a
meeting at the Midwest Housing Convention, University of
Chicago, December, 1957.

large student groups with diversified tastes on limited
budgets. In assuming responsibflity for the student's welfare,
the food service administrator seeks to provide the students
with foods that furnish adequate nutrients. Large amounts of
expensive protein foods, taken for granted in the American
diet, are included. waste resulting from poor menu planning
should be avoided-~both.plate waste, and production.waste.j
The menu can be considered the basis for cost control, and is.
a common source of student friction. If more of the relation-
ships between menu planning and the factor of selectivity

pertaining to food and labor costs, and student satisfaction

can be determined, this study will have been fruitful.

Delimitations g£_the study. Many factors, besides

 

 

selectivity, have a bearing on menu planning and success in
the residence hall food service program. In the general food
service industries, there are at least seven areas where con-
trol may be applied to yield maximum.income from operation,
i.e., purchasing, receiving, storing, issuing, production,

8 Administration is another important

inventory, and sales.
factor. Each of these areas requires study in itself. As
net income is not necessarily the main concern in a residence
hall situation, no attempt has been.made to measure these

dimensions in the study. Phases of the two areas, production

and sales, have been included as they directly affect menu

 

8
Joseph Brodner, Howard Carlson and Henry Maschal,
920 Cite p. 3380

8.

selectivity. The reader should be cognizant of these facts
in viewing the comparisons made between cost factors of the
menus.

As the study is purported to analyze residence hall
food service, only those institutions operating dormitories
and commons could be included. A mailing list has been
obtained, therefore, of all universities and colleges which

are members of the Association.g£’Collegp and University

 

Housing Officers from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,

 

Michigan. There are 162 member schools, representing every
state in the country. This is admittedly a small, but

selected sample.
The principal limitations of this study are those of

the questionnaire type of survey used to measure the signi-
ficance of menu selectivity and the small sample included.
At best, this type of survey can only be considered a crude
measurement; however, it does not in any way diminish the

importance of the study.

Hypotheses. Two major hypotheses were the bases for

 

making this study: (1) that a "single-choice menu" is
more economical to use in a residence hall dining unit because
of the greater control exercised over left over food, service,
labor, and equipment; (2) that students have greater

satisfaction with their meals when they can select from a

"multi-choice menu."

9.
Definitions Q£_Terms Used

Single-choice menu. The criteria for classifying a
menu as being either "single-choice" or "multi-choice" has
been arbitrarily set by the number of meals in which selections
were offered. Throughout this study, although somewhat mis-
leading, the term "single-choice menu" will be used to denote
menus that offer the student limited (less than 10 meals) or
no selectivity in his meals. It is reasonable to assume that
when a selection of items has only been.planned for less than
half of thetotal weekly meals, the problems of production,
left over food utility, food and labor costs are essentially
the same as those in.planning menus without any selectivity,
and definitely less than those in planning menus offering

selectivity in a greater number of meals.

 

:fiéfiulti-choice menu A "multi-choice menu" will be
interpreted as a menu that permits the student a choice of one
of several different salads, entrees, desserts, and beverages

in at least half of the total weekly meals served.
'The Survenyrocedures

ScOpe and method. Partly because of its extensiveness

 

in sc0pe, and partly because of costs the mail questionnaire
was chosen as the research vehicle for this study. Testing
menu selectivity.by laboratory methods would only have yielded
another food habit study, which is not the primary aim of this

investigation. Furthermore, the author believes that a valid

lO.

enough dichotomy, if such exists, between selective and non—
selective menus can be revealed by a questionnaire comparison
of current food service policies and practices in college

residence halls across the nation.

Preparation pf the Questionnaire. The questionnaire

 

consisted of seventeen check-type, seven short fill-in, and
one free-response type of questions (see Appendix B). It was
made up in this manner to enable the respondents to complete
all items easily and rapidly, as well as to facilitate tabula-
tions. The questions were arranged into homogeneous groups
under major headings to aid the respondent in answering the
Specific questions. Several drafts of the questionnaire were
prepared, studied, and revised before one was selected for
field testing for validity and reSponsiveness to all items.

A pilot questionnaire was sent to comparable institutions
to be included in the final study, around Michigan, Indiana,
and Illinois, on February IN, 1958. Three weeks were allowed
f0? returns. A total of 15 questionnaires were sent, and nim
were returned. Conclusions were drawn from the returned
questionnaires, and personal interviews of personnel in the
various residence hall dining units at Michigan State Univer-
sity. Accordingly, revisions were made on several questions,
and the overall appearance of the questionnaire itself was
shortened.

Specifically, the questionnaire includes, other than an

identification of the respondent, (1) data pertaining pg.food

11.

and labor costs and menu selectivity: the number of students
fed daily during the school year; the financial support
received by the institution; regional locality of the institu-
tion; size factor relationship to type of menu used; favorable-
ness of menu in production practices; the frequency on which
~choice is allowed; the number of students served per minute
through the cafeteria line; forecasting methods of production,
and accuracy of such methods; weekly hours expended in food
preparation; per cent of food and labor costs to gross income;

and (2) data pertainipg_£2_student satisfaction and menu

 

selectivity: methods of communication.with studenusto deter-

 

mine their tastes; the effectiveness of such communication;
student absenteeism, and type of community in which the
institution is located; and contributions made by food service

program to cultural deveIOpment of the students.

Prepgration pf the letter. In order to obtain greater

 

returns, the following elements were incorporated into the
letter (Appendix A) which accompanied the questionnaire: (1)
sending it under the sponsorship of the Hotel, Restaurant, an
Institutional Management Department of Michigan State University,
and Dr. S. Earl Thompson9; (2) offering participants an
abstract of the results of the study; and (3) emphasizing the

short period of time required to complete the questionnaire;

 

9Dr. S. Earl Thompson, Assistant Director of the School
of Hotel, Restaurant, and Institutional Management, Michigan
State University, is well known for his work in the residence
hall program.

12.

(h) assuring respondents of the anonymity of specific answers
cited in the study. Definitions of terms used were included
to eliminate possible misunderstanding of menu classification.
As a matter of convenience to the participants, self-addressed

and stamped envelOpes were included with the questionnaires.

gpestionnaire returns. On February 28, 1958, 162
questionnaires were mailed from.Kellogg Center, Michigan
State University. By March 21, 93 replies had been received,
which constituted a 55 per cent return. Follow-up letters
(Appendix C) and questionnaires were sent March 29 to non-
respondents, in light of the small survey sample, and for
higher reliability. Thirty-one more replies were received by
April 11, 1958, which brought the total returns to 77 per cent.
At this date, replies were cut off, and the results were

tabulated.

Tgbulations and analysis 2; the results. The returned

 

questionnaires were divided into two groups by menu type, that
is, multi-choice menu, and single-choice menu classifications.
Each group was separately tabulated, and the results arrayed
in tables for ease of comparison. Percentages are used for

comparing the respective figures.

 

Identification gf_the respondents. In conducting a sur-
vey by mail questionnaire, the factualness of the information
given is affected by the knowledge of the person who supplies

such information. In light of this, the participants were

l3.

asked to answer all questions in terms of the positions

they held and their experience.

The majority answering the questionnaires were food
service personnel; the others were residence hall admin-
istrators and business managers. Of the 55 respondents using
a multi-choice menu, 82 per cent were food service directors,
managers, supervisors or dietitians. The other 18 per cent
were housing directors and business managers. Of the 59
respondents using single-choice menus, 71 per cent held food
service positions and 29 per cent were housing directors. The

breakdown by position in each menu group is given in Table I.

One hundred and twenty-four replies were received, but
only 11k questionnaires were completed. Ten of the respond-
ents said that they did not have contract feeding in their
residence halls. Of these ten, eight said that they were
planning to institute food service in the near future. The
survey, then, has been based upon the 11h completed question-
naires, of which h8 per cent of the respondents are multi-choice

menu users, and 52 per cent are single-choice menu users.

1h.

CLASSIFICATION OF THE RESPONDENTS BY POSITIONS

 

 

 

 

 

I HELD ACCORDING TO MENU TYPE
MULTI-CH. MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
P O S I T I O N S: No.Resp. Per No. Resp. Per
cent cent
Director of Food Service 3h 62 2h kl
Supervisor of Food Service 3 5 3 5
Director of Dining Halls 6 ll 8 l3
Dietitian 2 u 7 12
Director of Student Housing,
Residence Halls, Commons 7 13 17 29
Business Manager 3 5 - -
Totals 55 100 59 100

 

 

Distribution g£_the respondents p1 area divisions. The

 

North Central Area shows the greatest frequency with 39 replies,
or 3k per cent representation in the sample. The remaining 75
institutions included in the survey are well distributed
throughout the United States. The South Atlantic Area in-
cludes the smallest frequency of replies, 7 per cent; followed
by the New England Area, 8 per cent. Both the South Central
Area and the Mountain Area have the same frequency of replies,
11 per cent; followed by the Pacific Area, In per cent; and
the Mid-Atlantic Area, 15 per cent. Chart I shows the distri-
bution.

There does not seem to be any regional significance as
to the type of menu used, although in the Pacific Area sample,
69 per cent of the 16 institutions represented are using a

single-choice menu.

15.

nodoao>co Cannon
:0 amasuumon Snag nomaoooms

 

aoa< oaMHomm

soa< Gawpzdoz

moa< flamenco mpoom

/ . moa< HmLpCoo npaoz

mead ouncwapm Sodom

. moa< oapcmapdupax

A. . . moa< Unwamqm 302

H N MAN-AC N

 

 

 

 

1(1

Ammma .ncoama>fic Hmcoawom
noncoo mo deepen mopsom wopacbv

 

*mZOHomm Hm mBzmnzomwmm mmH<ZZOHBmMDd ho ZOHBDmHmEmHQ
H ammmo

16.

Table Elshows the breakdown of the 11h institutions by

regions and menu type.

CLASSIFICATION OF 11h INSTITUTIONS BY REGIONAL

 

 

 

 

 

II AREA AND MENU TYPE :1

LOSQTEEEAEF THE INSTITUTIONS EE?T§;§§:M§§E EENGNESSI. gfyv
cent cent
New England1 3 5 6 10
Mid-Atlantic2 9 17 8 13
South Atlantic3 h 7 k 7
North Centralu 19 3h 20 3h
South Central5 8 15 h 7
Mountain6 7 13 6 10
Pacific7 5 9 11 19
Totals 55’ 100 59 :I50

 

 

1Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode
Island, Connecticut.

2New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania.

3Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia, Virginia,
West Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida.

“Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Missouri, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas,
Minnesota.

5Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Arkansas,
Louisiana, Texas, Alabama

Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Nevada

7Washington, Oregon, California.

17.

Organization 9: The Remainder
Of The Thesis

The remainder of the thesis has been arranged into
four sections. One section, or Chapter II, has been devoted
to the historical significance of menu selectivity, and food
habit studies, as they pertain to menu planning in the resi-
dence halls. Chapter III deals with the problem.of production
costs; more specifically, direct food and labor costs as they
are affected by permitting choice in the menu. Variables
having relationships to cost and selectivity such as the
number of students fed, and the type of financial support fl,
received by the institution are also brought out in ChapterIII.
Chapter IV attempts to point out the relationship between
menu selectivity and student satisfaction. Such factors as
student communication, and absenteeism are used to show how
menu choice affect satisfaction. The data for ChapteraIII
and(ipfihave been taken from.the questionnaire survey. The
last chapter contains a summary of the entire study, conclu-

sions drawn from the author's investigations, and his

recommendations.

CHAPTER II
A SURVEY OF THE RELATED LITERATURE

There is a recognized lack of literature in the field
of food service.10 As many books could not supply the type
of information desired, periodicals furnished the bulk of the
material used for study concerning menu planning and food
habits. MOst of this information is current. All available
references pertaining to residence hall food service listed
in Mary Keegan's unpublished thesis, §_Review and gummary 9:
literature Lpglinngith Housing and Food gervice £3 Colleges
and universities, 1956, Michigan State University, was surveyed.

 

 

Literature 92 Menu Plannipg And Selectivity

The case for using the single-choice menu. In using
a table d'hote service where set menus are the rule, careful
consideration must be given to food combinations in respect
to attractiveness of the assembled.meal--its contrasts in
color, form and texture; the combination of flavors present;
and the adequacy of the whole. "The meal is thought of as a
unit, the sum total of whole satisfactions should be as great
as possible."11 In the a la carte service where varied menus
are used, it is not possible to obtain such unification. Less

thought is given to color and flavor since the selection

 

10Brodner, Carlson and Maschal, 9p. cit., p. xvii-xviii.
11West and Wood, 0 . cit., p. 35.

l9.

determining them is made by the patron. This wider offering
is necessarily accompanied by more numerous preparation pro-
cesses and detailed planning.12
For restaurants, limited menus are supposedly ideal
in almost every situation:
A relatively small variety of foodstuffs has to be kept
on hand. The food moves quickly, and there is little
chance of loss from Spoilage. Leftovers can be kept at
a minimum.because production can be more carefully con-
trolled. Fewer employees are needed in the kitchen and
pantry. Cooks are able to concentrate on the proper
preparation, seasoning, and serving of a few items so
that these may be exceptionally good. 3
Another point is that service is speeded up as the customer
takes less time to make selections.lu Menu studies made
through sales analysis have shown that 75 per cent of all
lunch and dinner entrees are concentrated on not more than
seven items.15 While these various factors may be basic
truisms, it must be pointed out here that there is a signif-
icant difference between restaurants and residence hall dining

rooms. Because the "customer" count is pro-established, and

even "multi-choice menus" will be limiting in the number of
selections offered, these factors can apply only by degrees

in residence halls.

 

12Ibid.

13United States Department of Commerce. Establishipg
and Qperating_g Restaurant. (washington: Government Printing

Office, 1957), p. 90.

1LLIbid.

 

 

1
SBrodner, Carlson, and Maschal, gp. cit., p. 29.

 

20.

"Single-choice menus" are also favored from the stand-
point of costs. A questionnaire survey of 152 college and
university food Operations conducted by College and University
Business in 1950 asked food service directors what they were
doing to control operational costs in view of fluctuating
raw food and labor costs, forty-eight per cent of the direc-
tors stated that restriction of menu choices was their major

weapon.

The case for using the multi-choice menu. Hospital
dietitians have raised some pertinent questions pointing out
the "satisfaction" significance of a selective menu, which
are applicable to residence hall food service:

What should you feed a man or woman who is accustomed
to a diverse menu? How can you satisfactorily serve

a meal on a tray to a person who . . . is used to a
tablecloth at home and familiar faces around him when
he eats? . . . Selective menus are part of the answer--
pleasantly surprise them with variety, tastefulness,
and good service. By knOwing which foods do precipi-
tate reactions, . . . we can prepare in adygnce menus
for each meal with something for everyone.

In public dining places, a selective menu has been
noted to cut waste in consumption since the customer is in-
clined to order only what he is going to eat.18 Several

hOSpital dietitians reported that there was less plate waste

16Harold W. Herman, "The Food Service Picture, 1950,"
College and Universitquusinese, 9:h6-7, October, 1950.

17Maria G. Carey, "Food Service Must Serve Two Purposes,
The Medern Hospital, 88:116, April, 1957.

 

United States Department of Commerce, loc. cit.

21.

after they had changed from.the use of non-selective menus
to selective menus.19 Plate waste is important from the
standpoint of proper nutrition.

Cycle menus have been found to be helpful in offering
choices. The ratio of preferences are said to remain remark-
ably constant on such menus, furthering more accurate predic-
tions of quantity needs. For example, when lamb versus ham
appears; 80 per cent will take ham, 18 per cent will take
lamb, and 2 per cent will take neither. When ham is offered
with hamburgers as the choice, kl per cent will choose ham,
and 62 per cent will choose hamburgers, totaling 103 per cent,
which means that some people will eat two entrees. Clahm is
made that the selective menu will not increase production

problems if care is used in the pairing of items.20

Literature Qp_Studies 9; Food Habits

 

Historical studies made on the food habits of students
at various colleges have shown that student tastes are limited
to familiar foods. Because of the similarity of the results
of such studies, only a few will be cited here. The purpose
for citing such studies is to show how food habits will af-

fect menu planning and selectivity.

 

19Henrietta Becker and Dorothy'NMraskami, "Some People
Donfit Like Fish," Th3 Modern Respital, 82:120, April, 195A;
and Virginia Pinney, "There's No Magic to Preparing Cycle
Menus, "HOSpitals, January 1, 1957, p. 65.

 

20Mary P. Huddleson, "Dietitians Touch All the Bases at
.Annual Meeting in Milwaukee," The Modern Hospital, 87:116,
December, 1956; and Pinney, pp, cit., p. 55-58.

22.

At Knox college (Galesburg, Illinois) students were
surveyed by questionnaires to measure their likes and dis-
likes of food items served in the residence halls. These
food items were classified into several categories: those
that were requested to be served more often, and less often;
'best liked and most disliked; and favorite. Ham, beef, chicken,
hamburgers, chili, and sandwiches were universally popular
entrees; peas, corn, green beans were favorite vegetables;
oatmeal, eggs, pancakes and bacon were well liked for breakfast.
Liver and fish were unpOpular. Strongly flavored vegetables
as parsnips, turnips, cauliflower were most disliked. Favorite
foods were consistent with foods listed as those requested to
be served oftener. In general, women liked a greater number
and variety of foods than men. The men requested meat,

potatoes, pie, and were not interested in new dishes.21

Another such study made of 170 students enrolled in
classes involving some phase of foods and nutrition at Texas
Technological College (Lubbock, Texas) showed that no food
was listed as "well liked" and enjoyed by all 170 students.
Foods listed as "disliked" resembled those "seldom or never
eaten," which indicated a need for educational program in the

food service department of the residence halls.22

 

21Mary Person, "Menu Suggestion from the Students,"
College and University Businespyq9:48-9, October, 1950.

22Mina Lamb, "Food Preferences of College Women,"
Journal g£_the Americqp Dietetic Associatbn, 30:1120-1125,
November, 195M.

23.

A scientific method of evaluating food acceptability
by the quantification of the actual foods consumed under an
"ad libitum" regimen was conducted on 100 soldiers over a
period of 28 days by Army dietitians. The subjects averaged
21.5 years of age (range 18-25; this is comparable to the
college ages) and were in their second year of military train-
ing. Acceptability of the individual foods was expressed as
the percentage of the men present at the meals who took an
item. The average quantity of food consumed by the men taking
the item was also recorded. The results of the study showed
that the subjects had a strong preference for the meat dishes.
Eighteen of 29 items offered in this category were accepted by
more than 95 per cent of the men. Five of these items, roast
beef, grilled beef loin steak, pot roast, roast veal, and
vealburgers, were the most pOpular of all foods served. The
poultry meats were also very well liked, with white turkey
meat and chicken legs accepted by 98 per cent of the men. As
a group, seafoods were less acceptable with 5-20 per cent of
the subjects refusing the four varieties offered. The least
acceptable items were foods from.the vegetable, cereal or
miscellaneous group, i.e., steamed onions, lettuce wedges,
turnips, baked potatoes, crackers, horseradish sauce, and pea

and celery soups.

 

2

3Helen Vawter and Frank Konishi, "Food Acceptance by
Soldiers Under An Ad Libitum.Regimen," Journal g£_American
Dietetic Association, 3k:h0-2, January, 1958.

2h.

Food acceptability has been defined simply as a ques-
tion of which foods will be eaten. But what determines an
individual's particular likes and dislikes? Some contribu-
ting factors which have been cited are of biochemical,
physiological, social, and educational origin, while others
reflect mental state, sex, age, religion, economic status of
famdly, size and area of home community.2u Anthropologist
Margaret Mead says:

When it comes to food, Americans are confused--need-

lessly confused and even sometimes dangerously confused.

Nutrition has to do simply with a balanced diet for

health's and enjoyment's sake. Yet Americans often

decide what to eat not on the basis of what they like

or what's good for them, but 035the basis of attitudes

having little to do with food.
"There is agreement that students as well as others would be
satisfied with a diet restricted to a half dozen chosen
foods.26 Variety in food may be of less importance than
variety in other phases of food service. Factors which influ-
ence student behavior in residence hall dining rooms may be
more of an environmental nature, a need for a periodic change
of scenery. Complaints and dissatisfaction towards the food
have been shown to be more prevalent during examination

periods, just before vacations, and during particularly busy

times for students.27 Residence hall food service staff

 

21*Ibid. p. 36.

25Margaret Mead, "A New Look at Your Food Habits," The
Detroit Free Press Parade, February 23, 1958, p. 6.

26R. J. Lichtenfelt, "Good Food Is Not Enough," College
and University Business, 17:50-2, July, 195A.

27Person, loc. cit.

 

25.

should attempt to provide changes in the type of food service,
appointments, and atmosphere as well as food.28
The method of food preparation has been noted as an
important factor influencing the acceptability of foods, along
with menu composition and the frequency with which items are
offered. Acceptability is unconsciously shown at each meal
by the selection of foods according to certain characteristic
prOperties. Outstanding among these properties are odor, ap-
pearance, flavor, texture, and temperature of food when

served.29

In summary, single-choice menus are generally favored
for these reasons: (1) it is possible to plan food combina-
tions in respect to the attractiveness of the assembled meal;
when varied menus are used, it is not possible to obtain such
unification since selection of food items are made by the
patron; (2) a smaller variety of foodstuff must be kept on
hand, resulting in smaller inventories and less chance for
loss from spoilage; (3) production can be more carefully
controlled, reducing left overs; (A) service is speeded up,
reducing service costs; and (5) menu studies show that 75 Per
cent of all food sales are concentrated on not over seven
entrees.

Multi-choice menus are preferred by many hospital

 

28Lichtenfelt, loc. cit.

29
F. W. Dove, "DevelOping Food Acceptance Research,"

Science 103:187, l9h6.

26.

dietitians who say that a varied menu is one way of satisfy-
ing patients away from.home in unfamiliar surroundings. It
is also a way to reduce plate waste, important from a nutri-
tion.point of view. Furthermore, they have found that the us
of cycle menus in allowing choice have made choice practical,
since preferences are predictable.

Food habit studies point out two important facts
relevant to menu planning: (1) student tastes are limited.
The foods students like are the foods they are familiar with,
disliked foods are usually foods seldom or never eaten. An
educational program.in the residence hall food service is
necessary to teach students more about their food habits; and
(2) habits directed towards food do not necessarily have
anything to do with food pg£_gg, Many factors influence food
acceptability; some of these factors are biochemical, phys-
iological, social, mental state, and home environment. The
.method Of food preparation, menu composition, and the frequency

with which items are served also affect acceptability.

CHAPTER III
MENU SELECTIVITY AND FACTORS RELATED TO COSTS

The cost approach to a study of menu selectivity is a
realistic one. There are two major reasons why many food
service businesses fail: (1) poor general business conditions,
which is an economic situation over which management has no
control; and (2) imprOper management, which can be interpreted
as lack of technical skills and failure to keep costs under
control.30 The residence hall food service that must be self-
supporting without subsidy, or even yield an income in excess
of costs, is, therefore, cost-conscious. Labor and food costs
are the two principal factors dealt with in this chapter, since
together they account for approximately 75 per cent of the
costs to total income, and are universally similar in all
food Operations.

Other factors, indirectly related to costs, that may
have an influence upon menu selectivity have been considered.
It is believed that the administration policies of the insti-
tution, the number of students who must be serviced, or the
food service administrator's preference may be the deciding
force in determining whether a multi-choice menu or single-
choice menu is to be used. Indirectly, costs are considered

in establishing the food service program of the residence hall

30

U. S. Department of Commerce, 92, cit., p. 13.

28.

by college and university policies, and administration. Whether
or not costs are the primary concern, however, would depend

upon the phIIOSOphy and financial status of each institution.
State Supported and Privately Endowed Institutions

Because of the difference in the way institutions are
financed, there are differences in the administration poli-
cies of state supported, and privately endowed colleges and
universities. The menus were compared, therefore, along this
dimension in order to determine whether or not any relation-
ship existed between the two types of institutions which differ
in financial support, and the type of menu selected for use
in the residence hall.

The data show that about as many privately endowed
colleges use a multi-choice menu as those which use a single-
choice menu. Fifty-six per cent of the state supported insti-
tutions used a single-choice menu, and uh per cent used a
multi-choice menu (see Table III). Little, or no, relation-
ship between the type of financial support of the institutions
and the type of menu used is shown. The degree of association
between these two variables have also been measured by the e

co-efficient.31 The value of p was -.08, indicating negative,

or no, relationship.

 

31The “Phi Co-efficient" is a co-efficient which deter-
mines the degree of association between two dichotomous
variables. Its formula is stated as:

o = (bc) - (ad)
’V (tub) (0+d)(a+07(b+d)

 

 

 

 

1:: FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF THE INSTITUTIONS ,_
“' MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.NENU
TYPE OF INSTITUTION Number Per Number Per

of Resp. cent of Resp. cent

Privately endowed

 

institutions 26 M7 22 37
State supported
institutions - 29 53 37 63
Totals 55' 100 59 1004_

 

 

Size Influence 9p Menu Used

It was questioned whether there was an.optimum point
in the number of students fed when either menu might be more
economically used. Because the single-choice menu is sup-
posedly easier to administer in production and service, it
would be reasonable to believe institutions feeding large
numbers of students would use a single-choice menu, rather
than a multi-choice menu. 0n the other hand, large numbers of
students may be less homogeneous, and in order to satisfy more

tastes, a multi—choice menu might be preferable.

 

Thus, RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF
THE INSTITUTION AND TYPE OF MENU USED
MULTI-CH. SINGLE-CH. TOTALS—

 

 

MENU MENU
Privately endowed 26 22 MB
institutions (a) (b) (a b)
State supported 29 37 66
institutions (c) (d) (c d)
Totals 55 59 11&

(a+c) (b+d) (a+b+c+d)

30.

In reply to the question, "Does the number of students
fed have a bearing on the type of menu used?“, 29 per cent
of 53 respondents advocating a multi-choice menu said "yes,"
and 67 per cent said "no." Of the 56 respondents advocating
a single-choice menu, h2 per cent said "yes," and 53 per cent
said "no" (see Table IV). The d oo-efficient measuring the
variable of menu types and yes-no responses showed a value
of .15. This value can, at best, be interpreted to mean that
there is only a slight, or negligible, relationship between

the use of single-choice menus and size influence.

COMPARISON OF MENUS BY YES-N0 RESPONSES
IV - . TO SIZE INFLUENCE -7

, MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
SIZE INFLUENCE 0N TYPE OF Nwhber Per NUmber Per

 

 

 

 

MENU USED. of Reap. cent of Resp. cent
Yes 16 29 ‘25 A2
No 37 67 31 53

Totals-1% 53 96 56 95

 

 

*Five respondents did not answer this question.

To follow through on the question.of size influence, the
number of men and women fed daily during the school year by all
institutions responding "yes," or "no," were arrayed into four
groups: (1) single-choice menu users responding "yes,” (2)
single-choice menu advocates responding "no," (3) multi-choice
menu users replying "yes," and (h) multi-choice menu advocates

replying "no." The range and median numbers of students fed

31.

were recorded, and compared by menu type and yes-no responaxu
(see Table V).

The range numbers of students serviced within both menu
groups vary greatly, but the spread between the lower limits
and the upper limits of the range are about the same for both
groups. No justification could be found for making absolute
distinctions by comparing the median numbers because of the
wide variation in the ranges.

The 25 single-choice menu advocates who stated that
size influenced the type of menu used had approximately the
same range and median.numbers of students as the 31 single-
choice menu planners who said size had no influence. In short
the data show a 50-50 chance relationship.

Within the multi-choice menu group, there is more of a
dichotomy. The 16 administrators indicating that size had a
bearing on the menu used showed a lower median number of
students serviced, as well as lower ranges, than the 37
administrators indicating size had no bearing. Because of the
greater spread in the range of the administrators who said
size had no influence, a wider margin is left to chance. The
statistics, therefore, gay 93_pgy.pp§_mean that a multi-choice
menu would be more suitable for smaller groups of 500-600
students than it would be for larger groups exceeding 600
students.

In general, there seems to be no justification for
believing that size has any relationship to the type of menu

used. The only grounds for such beliefs would tend to lie

32.

with the individual food administrator, his production

methods, or other factors.

NUMBER OF MEN AND WOMEN STUDENTS FED DAILY
DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR CLASSIFIED

 

 

 

V_L BY YES-NO RESPONSES TO SIZE INFLUENCE
NUMBER OF STUDENTS MULTI-CHOICE MENU SINGLE-CHOICE MENU
FED Median Range Median Rangp

 

Yes responses:

Men 500 27-2100 680 125-6500

WOmen 600 50-218h 530 129-2000

No reSponses:
Men 600 50-6500 675 105-6300
Women 700 _170- 3500 662 100-2751;

 

 

Menu Preference 9£_the Administratorsiefwr

Although the menu preference dimension is an Opinion
type of measure, its claim to validity cannot be overlooked
as irrelevant in a study dealing with facts. The experiences
of the respondents indicated that these are the peOple who
should.know. Many pointed out in the questionnaire they
operated several different types of food services on campus;
and.from.this diversity,.they were able to form judgments.

The question asked the administrators was, "from a
rumoduction point of view, which type (of menu) is preferable?"
(Mf‘the 59 single-choice menu users, 83 per cent preferred the
single—choice menu, while 10 per cent preferred a multi-choice
menu, and 7 per cent had no preference. Fifty-two per cent of the

55 nnflldmohoice menu users said that they preferred a single-

33.

choice menu, hh per cent preferred the multi-choice menu, and
h per cent had no preference. Some of the respondents who had
no preference said that good production methods tended to

make both menus equally favorable. Nevertheless, the ratio
of administrators who prefer the single—choice menu to the

multi-choice menu is approximately 3 to 1 (see Table VI ).

MENU PREFERENCE OF

 

 

 

 

 

VI llLAD‘i-‘IINISTRATORS

MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

TYPE OF MENU PREFERREDt Number Per Number Per
of Regp. cent of Resp, cent

Single-choice menu 29 52 A9 83

Multi-choice menu 2H NH 6 10

No preference 2 h h 7

Totals 55 100 59g 100

 

 

The more significant reasons given by over 60 per cent
of the administrators favoring a single-choice menu were
lower food costs, lower labor costs, ease of production, and
ease in planning. Some of the other reasons given are "speed
in serving" and "fewer left overs", (see Table VII ).

"Lower food cost" was the only reason given by as many
as 50 per cent of the administrators who preferred the multi-
choice menu. Thirty-three percent of this group also checked
"personal preference" as a reason; it is the only factor
listed which does not have economic value. Other reasons given
were "student preference" and "allow use of odds and ends."
Gable VII).

Thus, Opinion-wise, the hypotheses used for this study

would seem to hold true. From a production point of view, the

31L.

single-choice menu is preferable; and student preference is

considered in selecting a multi-choice menu.

REASONS GIVEN FOR MENU PREFERENCE OF

 

 

VII 108 ADMINISTRATORS H
MULTI-CHpgNU SINGLE-CHJENU
REASONS FOR PREFERENCE Number Per Number Per
of Heep, cent of Resp. cent

(Base for percentages) (N a 30) (N . 73)
Lower food cost 15 50 M9 63
Base in planning 13 NB E7 60
Student preference 12 to - -
Ease of production 10 33 61 78
‘YOur personal preference 10 33 3 A
Lower labor cost h 13 5h 69
Speed in serving V - - h 5
Fewer left overs - -
Allow use of odds and ends 2 7 l 1
Less repetition of menu

items - - l 1
Local market availability

of foodstuffs - - l 1
Ease of service - - l 1
less waste - - l 1
Lack of facilities - - l l
Centralization of bakeshop

and meat department - ‘ - 1 l

Balanced diet - - 2 3

 

 

 

35.

Labor Costs In The Service

And Production Of Food

Labor costs alone constitute one-third of the total
expense to total income. Some administrators believe that
labor can be more efficiently used when a multi-choice menu
is in effect; other administrators disagree. There are
several ways by which labor efficiency, or costs, can be
determined: (1) speed of service through the cafeteria line
which determines the length of working time required of
service personnel; (2) meals produced per man-hour of labor
consumed in food preparation determines to an extent the
number of production workers and the length of time required
to prepare food for any dining unit; and (3) per cent of labor
cost to total income received. Both single-choice menus and
multi-choice menus have been compared by the above dimensions
in order to find out the degree to which selectivity affects
labor costs. At today's wage level, maximum.utilization of

costly labor is a very important consideration.

Spggg.g£_service through cafeteria line. Speed of ser-
vice in the serving line is an important consideration to menu
selectivity. It has been claimed that choice slows down the
line. In the "waiting line theory" develOped for the design
of cafeteria counters, six factors are cited as responSdble
for delays in line: those generated by the patron - visiting
in line, making selections, and getting prOper change; those

generated by the Operation - poor service, poor design and

36.

a varied menu.32

Although the choices are more restricted in the resi-
dence hall cafeteria using a multi-choice menu than in the
normal type of cafeteria, the data show that choice does slow
down the line slightly. The greatest frequency of the multi-
choice menu group served between five and six students per
minute, while the greatest frequency of the single-choice
menu group served between seven and eight students per minute
(see Tablelflfll. The "weightedmean"33 number of students
served per minute is seven for the multi-choice menu group,
and nine for the single-choice group.

NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED PER MINUTE

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VIII _+ __ _ TOUR- swamp“- _T ‘
- , MULTIJCH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

NUMBER OF STUDENTS SERVED Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent

3 to h 2 5 2 5

5 to 6 17 Al 3 8

7 to 8 10 2h. 15 he

9 to 10 ll 26 7 18

11 to 12 - - 6 l6

13 to 1h 1 2 3 8

15 to 16 l 2 2 5
Totals* E2 100 38 IO .

 

*Eight of the single-choice menu group have table service
only.

 

32Maurice Chartrand, The Design 9; Cafeteria Counters.
(Wercester, Massachusetts: The Norton Company, 1957), p. 3.

33The "weighted mean" was computed by multiplying the
number of respondents times each.mddpoint, as 3.5, 5.5, 7.5,
9.5, 11.5, 13.5, and in Table VIII. The sum of this product

37.

Meals_produced per employee-hour expended. To test the
thesis that productivity is proportionate to the number of
items which.must be prepared in the menu, the following formuhi
was used:

Total weekly hours expended by
N = employees in food preparation
Number of students fed daily in
the residence halls X 21 meals;

N 8 the number of meals produced per man-
hour of labor consumed.

Twenty-three reSpondents in the multi-choice menu group, and
twenty respondents in the single-choice menu group were able
to furnish the information on total weekly hours used in food
production. The following observations have been based upon
a restricted sample.

It was found that the institutions using a multi-choice
menu produced from.8.6 to hl.7 meals per man hour of labor
used, and.that institutions using a single-choice menu pro-
duced from.15.h to 65.9 meals per man hour of labor expended.
The multi-choice menu group average 26.5 meals in contrast to
the single—choice menu group who averaged 35.5 meals per
employee-hour. The statistics seem to indicate that labor
productivity is higher when a smaller variety of menuitems
must be prepared.

To further examine the difference in the meal productivity

 

was divided by the total number of reSpondents in each
group to find the mean.

38.
of the two groups who furnished information.on total hours
unsed in food preparation, some of the food service practices
were compared. Seventy-eight per cent, or 18 of the multi-
choice menu planners used pre-fabricated meats, whereas 55
per cent,or ll, of the single-choice menu planners operated
butcher shOps; a few did both. Over 70 per cent in both
groups bought bread and rolls, and over 50 per cent Operated
their own bakeries (see TableIDO.

The only discernible difference existing between the
food.production.practt es of the two groups is the slight dif-
ference in meat processing. ‘Yet, because the differences are
small, it is doubtful that the operation of butcher shOps can
increase meal production to any greater extent than the use of
pre-fabricated meats. Menu selectivity can still be held ac-
countable for the differences in the number of meals produced

per employee-hour used.

 

 

 

 

 

 

IX FOOD PRODUCTION PRACTICES
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
FOOD POLICIEs. ' Number Per Number Per
_p, of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
(Base for percentages) (N 8 23) (N - 20)
Purchase pre-fabricated
meats 18 78 12 60
Buy only bread and rolls 1? 7h 17 85
Use prepared mixes 13 57 10 50
Operate bakery 12 52 12 6O
Operate butcher shop 6 26 11 55

"Purchase all baked goods 1 h - -

39.

2.9.2: seat 9.: labor 9.0.s.t_ .129. has; inane. The respon-
dents did not all furnish information on labor cost per cent
to gross income. Forty-four advocates of the single-choice
menu, and E3 advocates of the multi-choice menu responded.

As a group, the single-choice menu users seem to have lower
labor costs than the multi-choice menu users. Sixty-nine

per cent (center cluster of figures) of the multi-choice menu
advocates Show labor cost percentages ranging from 26.5-38.5
per cent; and 2h.per*cent of the respondents have labor costs
ranging from 18.5-26.5 per cent. In these same ranges, 50
per cent of the single-choice menu advocates show labor costs
of 26.5-38.5 per cent, and El per cent of the respondents
have costs of 18.5-26.5 per cent (see Table Xj). The median
labor cost percentage for the multi-choice menu group is 30
per cent (ranga,2l.O-h6.0 per cent); for the single-choice
menu group, the median is 27.6 per cent (range, 20.0-h3.2 per
cent). The lower labor cost percentages for the single-choice

menu group may be partially explained by the higher producti-

vity in the number of meals prepared per man hour of laborimmd.

 

 

 

 

 

_3g;pp PER CENT OF_LABOR COSTS TQ_TOTAL INCOME Miw,___
"” ’ “NUL'T I:CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

PER CENT RANGES Number Per Number Per

__ of Resp. cent of Resp.m~cent

18.5 and under 22.5 1 2 7 16

22.5 and under 26.5 10 22 ll 25

26.5 and under 30.5 ' 13 31 8 18

30.5 and under 3h.5 8 19 10 23

X_ (continued)

.—

 

.— VF—

RANGES

—‘ .wh—fi—

—.—_.l—-... _ _

ibLTI-CnJunTU
Number Per
of Resp. cent

 

 

NO

 

"o‘- -_.

SIiCL -CH. MENU

 

 

 

3h.5 and under 38.5
38.5 and under h2.5
h2.5 and under h6.5

Totals

8 19
2 S
1 2

1‘3" ” “NICO;

 

-1‘.‘ .__ ._ _—.__...

 

WNumber Per
oprespp cent __
1i 9
3 7
l 2
;T“:yhf 100*

 

Toad Seats. Ami Praguatfli on 9.0.91? 0.1.

Raw food constitutes the highest single expense in

institutional food service,

and generally accounts for ap-

proximately 35 to 55 Der cent of the cost to total income.

Regional price differences beyond the administrator's control,

purchasing standards,

and portion policies are some of the

reasons why such a wide interval exists in the foodeeXpense

account of the institutions.

However, since menu selectivity

in the residence halls are mainly problems of production

control, no attempt has been.made to include the other factors

for study.

The ability to forecast production accurately is the

basis for all production control - knowing what to prepare

in the right quantity prevents excessive left over food from

occuring.

The more items that are allowed for choice,

greater the problems of preventing waste.

the

The following

aspects are included in the investigation dealing with food

costs:

(1) food production forecast methods; and the ef-

ficiency of such methods in controlling left over foods;

Al.

(2) the number of items, meals, and weekly frequency on which
choice is allowed; (3) the daily raw food budget allowance
per student; and (h) per cent of food cost to total income.
By comparing multi-choice menus and single-choice menus with
the above aspects, the relative significance of menu selec-

tivity to food costs may be detected.

Food production forecast and left over food control. As
left over food control is one of the major problems in food
production, it must be considered in menu planning. The fore-
casting accuracy, which can only be determined by the method
employed, is usually responsible for the amount of left over
food from.each meal. Under any circumstances, accurate fore-
casting is difficult and in many situations, forecasting is
judgment and guesswork. A few of the participants in the
survey stated that forecasting itself would be a good subject
for extensive investigation. To measure the relationship of
selectivity to left over food control, the two types of menus
have been compared as to the forecast methods used, and the
amount of usuable and disposable left over food normally
remaining from the serving counter.

, Both groups of menu planners employ the same techniques
of forecasting food production to approximately the same degree.
A majority of respondents used the following in forecasting:

(l) headcount, making allowances for special events and

weather conditions; (2) keep records of amounts of food servai
and left over. Over 60 per cent of both groups relied upon

past experience, which implies using intuition, as an

#2.

additional guide in forecastin . The cyclical menu, which

has been cited for its efficiency in planning selective

menus, was used by a few single-choice menu planners, but not
to any extent by either group. In stating other methods

used, the administrators indicated that weekend meals required
special headcounts and signouts because of the fluctuating

attendance (Table XI ).

 

 

 

x1 FOOD PRODUQTION FORECAST METHODS
" “"‘ L MULTI-CHJ'ENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
FORECASTING METHODS Number Per Number Per

of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
Past experience (intuition) 3h 62 37 63

Headcount taken at each meal,
with allowance for special

events 31 56 35 59
Records kept of amounts

served and left over 28 51 33 56
Use of cyclical menus S 9 h
Meal tickets 2 h 3 S
Standardized recipes 1 2 - -
Signout for weekends l 2 5 8
Weekend headcounts l 2 l 2
Previous year(s) records - - 5 8
Plate counts - - 2 3

 

 

The majority in both menu groups said they usually had
less than 10 per cent of the food left over from the serving
line. Forty-two respondents, or 76 per cent, using a multi-
choice menu indicated less than 10 per cent left over food,

while 50, or 85 per cent, of the respondents using a

1L3.

single-choice menu indicated less than 10 per cent left over
food. The single-choice menu advocates show a slightly
higher degree of efficiency in left over food control in that
respect. However, neither menu group had over 20 per cent
left over food normally remaining from the serving line.

No conclusions can be drawn as to the comparative
favorableness of either menu in the control of left over food
and waste. Both groups of menu planners use more than one
forecast method, and within each group, many use as many as
three or four methods, indicating that production is equally
difficult to predict whether a selective or non-selective menu

is used.

Number 9£_items, meals, and weekly frquency 22 which.
choice is allowed. To be able to account for any difference
of menu costs, it would be necessary to measure the degree to
which choices are available by comparing both menus for the
number of items on which selection is given, and how often
selections are offered. It is presumed that more planning is
involved when a greater variety of foods must be produced, and
that food and labor costs increase proportionately.

In planning a multi-choice menu, 75-96 per cent of the SS
administrators included a choice of salads, vegetables, entrees,
desserts, beverages, breakfast cereals, fruits and fruit juices,
and bread products (see Table XII). No one item.was given as
a choice by 100 per cent of the administrators; breakfast

cereals, however, were allowed by 96 per cent as a choice at

uh.

breakfast. This is probably due to the fact that little or no
preparation is involved, and also no increase in cost factors.
Limited choice is also allowed by the 59 single-choice
menu planners. A choice was most frequently allowed on.bev-
erage and cereal, the two items involving the least amount of
extra effort in preparation, or increase in costs. Few
administrators allow a choice on items which take greater
preparation time such as salads, vegetables, entrees, and

desserts. These items are offered by only 17-22 per cent of

the administrators (see Table XII ).

 

 

 

XII »_ NUMEEROF ETEMS 0N WHICH CHOICEIS_OFEERED_ -,__ ___
EULTI-CHLHENU SINGLE-CH.D£E_§_U_
ITEMS ON WHICH SELECTION Number Per Number Per
IS OFFERED of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
Breakfast cereals 52 96 25 h2
Beverages SO 91 21 36
Desserts M8 87 13 22
Salads #7 85 12 2O
Bread products #7 85 19 32
Fruit juices/fruits us 82 17 29
Entrees #3 78 13 22
Vegetables #2 76 10 17
Appetizers 25 #5 2 3

 

Choice was permitted at breakfast, lunch, and dinner by

89-91 per cent of the multi-choice menu users. Thirty-four
per cent of the single-choice menu planners allowed selections

for breakfast, and approximately 25 per cent gave a choice at

1+5.

lunch and dinner (see Table XIUQ. Thus, the multi-choice
menu planners not only permitted choice of a greater variety

of items, but also more consistently for all three meals.

 

 

 

 

 

XIII MEALS ON WHICH CHOICE IS OFFERED
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
MEALS ON WHICH CHOICE IS Number Per Number Per
GIVEN of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
Breakfast 50 91 20 3h
Lunch. M9 89 15 25
Dinner #9 89 1h 25

 

_____¥

Ninety-six per cent, or 53, of the multi-choice menu
users indicated they allowed choice on over ten meals weekly,
which is approximately half of the meals that the students
are served. Of the 59 single-choice menu planners, 29 per
cent included choice on five to ten meals weekly; 5 per cent
never allowed a choice; and 66 per cent only permitted a
choice occasionally (see Table XDW. Of the 39 respondents
who permitted a choice occasionally, 17 gave a choice on
Fridays and Lent; ll when there were left overs; 10 when un-
pOpular items were on the menu; 2 when there were pork items
on the menu; and l to introduce new dishes.

The multi-choice menu allows students to choose a variety
of items for breakfast, lunch, and dinner, at 50 per cent of
the weekly meals. The single-choice menu also demonstrates
a certain degree of flexibility in that it does permit
limited choice at any of the three meals, up to a maximum of

50 per cent of the total weekly meals served, but more

M6.

frequently to make adjustments for different occasions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

__IV WEEKLY FREQUENCY ON WHICH CHOICE IS ALLOWED
" min-03.1mm st'c'fslcmfiuv
WEEKLY FREQUENCY Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp, cent
From.5 to 10 meals weekly - .- 17 29
Over 10 meals weekly 53* 96 - -
Occasionally - - 39 66
Never - - 3 3

 

*Two respondents did not answer.

Daily raw food budget allowance per student.. Thirty-

 

six respondents in the multi-choice menu group, and hi
respondents in the single-choice menu group reported the al-
lowable costs for raw food per student per day. No apparent
significance was reported between the amount of money allotted
per student for raw food in the two menu groups. The disper-
sion of respondent frequencies show that over 80 per cent
(center cluster of figures) of both.groups allow raw food
costs from.$.70 to approximately $1.15 daily food budget per
student (see Table XV.). Over 30 per cent in both groups

have daily budgets ranging from.$.70 to $.85; over 22 per cent
from.$l to $1.15. The lower and upper limits dispersion of
respondent frequencies in the budget scale are approximately
the same. On this basis, the food cost percentages for both
menu groups are comparable, assuming that both.groups are

working with the same amount of money daily for raw food.

M7.

 

 

 

 

XV“ DAILY RAW FOOD BUDGET ALLOWED PER STUDENT

MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

DAILY BUDGET RANGES Number Per Number Per ,

IN DOLLARS of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
.hO and under .55 2 6 3 7
.55 and under .70 2 6 1 2
.70 and under .85 12 33 1h 35
.85 and under 1.00 10 27 9 22
1.00 and under 1.15 8 22 10 25
1.15 and under 1.30 - - 3 7
1.30 and under 1.h5 1 3 - -
1.H5 and under 1.60 1 3 1 2
Totals 367 100 M1 100

 

 

Per cent 2: food cost 39 total income. Restriction of

 

 

 

menu choices has been cited as a major control exercised by
food service directors in keeping food costs down. Yet, in
comparing the food cost percentages of the multi-choice and
single-choice menu groups, there is no evidence that giving
a choice of menu items will increase food costs.

The respondents did not all furnish information per-
taining to food costs; of the multi-choice menu group, there
were E3 replies; and of the single-choice menu group, there
were N6 replies. About 70 per cent (center cluster of figurafl
of the administrators in both menu groups have food costs of
39.5 to 51.5 per cent (Table XVI). Twenty-six per cent of
both groups have food costs ranging from.h3.5 to h7.5 per
cent; over 20 per cent of the respondents have costs ranging

from.h3.5 to h7.5 per cent; and over 22 of the respondents

NB.

have costs ranging from.h7.5 to 51.5 per cent. The upper
and lower limits of the respondent frequency dispersion on
the cost percentage scale are equally distributed. The
median food cost percentage for the multi-choice menu group
is an per cent (range, 30.3-5h.0). For the single-choice
menu group the median is h5.3 per cent (range, 29.3-60.0).
The statistics showed that non-selective menus were not more
economical than selective menus in.respect to food costs as

a percentage of total income.

 

 

 

 

£¥l~ PER CENT OF FOOD COST TO TOTAL INCOME
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
PER CENT RANGES Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
27.5 and under 31.5 1 2 l 2
31.5 and under 35.5 1 2 1 2
35.5 and under 39.5 3 7 5 11
39.5 and under N3.5' 11 26 12 26
N3.5 and under N7.S 9 21 9 2o
u7.5 and under 51.5 12 28 10 22
51.5 and under 55.5 h 10 5 11
55.5 and under 59.5 1 2 l 2
59.5 and under 63.5 1 2 2 h
Totals A3 100 HE' 100

 

 

(+9.

Summary

Chapter III has attempted to study menu selectivity
from a cost approach. The investigation is based upon the
data gathered from the questionnaire. Three dimensions
have been considered: (1) factors which have an influence
upon menu selectivity, and are indirectly related to costs,
as the financial structure of the institution, the number
of students serviced in the residence hall food service, and
menu preference of the administrator from a production stand-
point; (2) labor costs in the service and production of
food; and (3) food costs and production control. The inves-

tigation shows that:

1. There is no correlation between state supported
institutions, privately endowed institutions, and the type
of menu used. Menu planning is an individual policy, apart
from the type of financial support received by the institution.

The assumption that an Optimum size exists where one
type of menu will be more economical to use has not been
shown to be true. The number of students fed, or size, does
not seem to have any definite influence upon the type of
menu selected for use in the residence hall.

The administrators themselves think that a single-
choice menu is more favorable thaneimulti-choice menu from
a production standpoint. Yet, there are as many multi-choice
menu users as there are single-choice menu users in the

survey sample. It partially contradicts any theory that

50.

costs are the primary concern when planning residence hall
menus.

2. Labor costs have been found to be higher when a
multi-choice menu is used. Permitting choice in the menu
slows down service time, and meal productivity as well.

The respondents using single-choice menu indicate that
meal production output is higher for each man-hour of labor
used, service time in the cafeteria line is faster, and per
cent of labor cost to total income is lower thaithe multi-
choice menu.

\\_ 3. The per cent of food costs to total income is ap-
proximately the same for both menus. There is no validity
to the presumption that food costs would be higher in the
use of a multi-choice menu; even though it may be true in
the case of commercial food service establishments where
variety is much greater than in residence halls. The amount
of money allowed per student per day for raw food is ap-
proximately the same for the two menu groups.

The multi-choice menu planners are consistent in allow-
ing students a large number of items from.which they can
choose at breakfast, lunch, and dinner, for approximately
half or more of the total weekly meals served. The single-
choice menu planners also demonstrate a certain degree of
flexibility in.permitting occasional choice, up to half of
the total weekly meals served, but more frequently to make
adjustments for Fridays, Lent,and other occasions.

Both menu groups use a number of forecast methods in

51.

planning food production. Regardless of the type of menu
used, production is equally difficult to estimate in ad-
vance. Thus selectivity does not seem to affect the
production forecast to any extent. Left over food control
may or may not be slightly better when a single-choice menu

is used because of the small difference found in the statistics.

CHAPTER IV

MENU SELECTIVITY AND FACTORS RELATED TO

STUDENT SATISFACTION

Students are the ultimate consumers for whom the menus
are planned. Regardless of the costly time expended in food
production and planning, the menu cannot, by any standard,
be considered a "success" if students do not approve. Further-
more, the responsibility of the food service has not been
fully discharged when students do not eat what has been
planned for them on the menu, as nutrition is generally con-
sidered a part of the administrator's responsibility.

Student satisfaction can be determined by several methods: i
(l) communicating with the students in planning the menus, (2)
observing plate waste, and (3) noting excessive absenteeism.
The Opportunity for cultural develOpment that the residence 1
hall food service program offers to students is another ime

portant factor which may influence student attitude, or

satisfaction.

Communication With Students In_

Menu Planning And Its Effectiveness

Since menus are planned for students, it is reasonable
to assume that they will be more satisfied when they have a
voice in the matter. Although students may express their
opinions or feelings on this subject in many different ways,

communication methods may generally be classified as verbal

53.

or non-verbal. Verbal methods consist of all methods written
or Spoken. Non-verbal methods are simply observation.methods.

It does not make any differeme how verbal opinions are
expressed; communication effectiveness can be checked by
using non-verbal methods, that is, by observing plate waste
and checking absenteeism. Excessive plate waste indicates
that students either have too much to eat, or dislike what
they are getting to eat. Excessive absenteeism is also an
indication of poor menu planning, preparation techniques,
service, or a combination of all three.

When the participants were asked if they had a basis
for determining student likes and dislikes of menu items
planned, 85 per cent, or h7, of the multi-choice menu planners,
and 88 per cent, or 52, of the single-choice menu planners
said "yes." Two administrators indicating a negative response
stated that "the less controversy created between students

and menu planning, the better the food service situation."

Methods g£_communication. Both groups of menu planners

 

have direct communications with students to about the same
extent. Of the multi-choice menu group, 51 per cent held
consultations, h2 per cent have student preference committees,
and 25 per cent conducted Opinion surveys. Of the single-
choice menu group, h9 per cent held consultations, uh.per
cent had student preference committees, and 13 per cent con-
ducted Opinion surveys. A number of administrators in both

menu groups stated the use of indirect methods such as noting

ELI-o

student acceptance by recording items taken, checking plate
waste, checking student attendance, observing students in
dining rooms, and past experiences with student likes and
dislikes (Table XVII ).

Generally, the overwhelming majority in both menu groups
do try to establish regular communication channels with their

students; and many have several methods of maintaining student

 

 

contact.

XVII METHODS OF STUDENT COMMUNICATIONS
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

COMMUNICATION METHODS- Number Per Number Per

of Resp. cent of Resp. cent

Consultations, groups

or individuals 28 51 29 N9
Student preference

committee 23 N2 26 RH -
Opinion survey 1h 25 8 13
Student acceptance, recor-

ding items taken 12 22 8 l3
Checking plate waste 11 2O 10 17
Suggestion box 5 9 u 7
Past experiences 3 5 1 2
Informal student remarks 2 h 9 15
Student attendance 2 h 1 2
Meetings with house direc-

tors, head residents 2 h - -
Menu meetings with students 1 2 - -
Observation 1 2 5 8
Request for "seconds" 1 2 1 2
Newspaper articles - - l 2

55.

XVII 4(Qontinued)
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU

COMMUNICATION METHODS Number Per Number Pervw'
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent

Petition to student
council - - 1 2

Opinions of student
waiters and other
employees - - 2 3

 

 

Effectiveness 92 communication.methods. In determining

 

the effectiveness of their communication methods by observ-
ing plate waste, 67 per cent of the multi-choice menu users
said "yes," their communication methods were effective, and
2k per cent said "sometimes" their communications were ef-
fective. Of the single-choice menu users, 68 per cent said
"yes," and 22 per cent said "sometimes" (see Table XYUJL
Communication effectiveness as determined by the observation
of plate waste in discovering student likes and dislikes of

menu items can be considered equally good for both menu groups.

The data indicate that menu selectivity does not
necessarily contribute to greater student satisfaction than
a menu which.does not allow selectivity. Both groups of menu
planners have communication methods for determining student
tastes, and they indicate that their methods are effective,

judged impartially by checking plate waste.

56.

EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNICATION METHOD
XVII , - AS DETERMINEDBY PLATE WASTE OBSERVATION- A p
"I ’ MULTI-CH. MENU SINGLE-CH; MENU

   

      

 

 

 

RESPONSES Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
‘Yes 37 67 39 68
Sometimes 13 2h 13 22
No - - 1 2
Don't know 1 2 1 2
_ Totals* 51‘ 93’ 85H §ET-__—_-

 

I *ReSponseszill net tOtEl 100 per Cent; nine reapOndents
did not answer this part of the question.

Student Absenteeism

Student absenteeism.has been.pointed out as a possible
dimension for determining student satisfaction with the
menu. Realizing that many factors will affect meal atten-
dance such as campus events, weekends, weather, special
attractions in town, rather than a pure selectivity factor,
an attempt was also made to compare the abnormal absenteeism
periods by menu types. The assumption was made that where
small deviations between.the statistics of the two menu
groups could be attributed to chance, large deviations would
more readin by explained by student attitudes toward the
meals.

Another factor which.may or may not have any signi-
ficance to student absenteeism is the type of community,

metropolitan or nonrmetropolitan, in which the institution is

57.

located. As a city, or metrOpolitan community, is presumed
to have more outside eating establishments, shows, and other
amusements, while the non-metrOpolitan communities are pre-
sumed to have fewer such attractions, the attractiveness of
the menu used in the residence hall dining room may affect
absenteeism accordingly. The terms "single-choice menu" and
"multi-choice menu" interpreted liberally are identified with
the terms "variety" and "monotony." Variety and monotony
have a bearing on absenteeism and type of community in which
the institution is located:

There will always be a running, fluctuating battle

between the adherents of "variety" and the pro-

ponents of "monotony." Either can be costly if

carried to extremes. Variety, if it is overdone,

can easily mean dead stock in the storeroom, spoil-

age and left overs. Monotony can mean added busi-

ness for someone else's restaurant.3
To further illustrate, if a single-choice menu is used by
the institution located in the midst of a metropolis, there
may be different times when the meal served may not appeal
to the student, so he eats out. If a multi-choice menu were
used in the same situation, there would be fewer occasions
when the meal will not appeal, since he is permitted a choice.
In the non-metrOpolitan situation, the student has less re-

course should the menu be displeasing; he eats or refrains

from eating the food offered.

Type g£_community in_which.the institution 12 located.

 

 

In comparing the type of menu used by the type of community

 

3hBrodner, Carlson, and Maschal, pp, cit., p. 362

58.

where the institution is located, there seems to be a
relationship between metrOpolitan areas and the use of
multi—choice menus; and non-metrOpolitan areas and the use
of single-choice menus. Thirty-six, or 66 per cent, of the
respondents using a multi-choice menu were in metropolitan
areas. Thirty-nine, or 66 per cent, of the respondents using
a single-choice menu were in other types of communities which
would include townships, towns, rural areas (see Table XIX).
To further test the significance of such a relationship, the
M co-efficient was applied. The value obtained for d was
.25, indicating a positive relationship between the type of
community and the type of menu used.

It is inferred that administrators in metrOpolitan
areas have greater competition and accordingly, plan selective
menus in their residence hall dining rooms. The administrahns
in non—metropolitan areas may or may not have the problem of
city attractions, but the majority plan non-selective menus

in their dining rooms.

XIX TYPE OF COMMUNITY IN WHICH INSTITUTION IS LOCATED

MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
TYPE OF COMMUNITY Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent

 

 

Metropolitan 36 66 20 3h
Other 19 3E 39 66
___ Totals 55’ 100 59 100

 

 

Average per cent 9: student absenteeism.per term. No

 

 

true dichotomy could be drawn between the average student

59.

absenteeism per term figures of the two menu groups. Forty-
seven per cent, or 22, of the multi-choice menu users had
less than 10 per cent average absenteeism per term, and 21
per cent, or 10 respondents, had over 20 per cent absenteeism.
Forty-four per cent, or 24, of the single-choice menu planners
had less than 10 per cent average absenteeism per term, and 25
per cent, or 14 respondents, had over 20 per cent absenteeism
(see Table XX).

Absenteeism seems to be more a matter of individual food
service operations and other factors rather than menu selec-
tivity in general, notwithstanding the fact that there may be

a "community" influence, as cited before.

xx AVERAGE PER CENT 0F STngNT ABSENTEEIsM PER TERM

MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
ABSENTEEISM PERCENTAGES Number For Number Per
of Regp. cent of Resp. cent

 

 

Less than 5 per cent 7 15 12 . 22
Less than 10 per cent 15 32 12 22
Less than 20 per cent 15 32 17 31
Over 20 per cent 10 21 14 25

Totals 47 100 55 100

 

Abnormal absenteeism periods. Menu selectivity seems to

 

have no important effect on student meal attendance at certain
periods of the term. Twenty-nine per cent of both menu groups
‘reported higher absenteeism during examination periods. In

the multi-choice menu group, 65 per cent had greater absentee-

ism during holidays, and 87 per cent on weekends. Of the

60.

single-choice menu group, 56 per cent had abnormal absentee-
ism during holidays, and 93 per cent on weekends (see Table
XXI). Campus events are also cited as periods for poor meal

attendance.

 

 

 

 

XXI ABNORMAL ABSENTEEISM PERIODS DURING THE_TERM
MULTI-CH.MENU SINGLE-CH.MENU
ABSENTEEISM PERIODS Number Per Number Per
of Resp. cent of Resp. cent
Weekends 48 87 55 93
Holidays 36 65 33 56
Examination periods* 16 29 17 29
Beginning of new terms 12 4O 8 13

Fraternity-sorority
functions 2 4 10 17

"Dress nights" for
dinner 2 4 - -

Athletic and other

campus events 2 '4 2 3
Breakfast meals 2 4 6 10
Spring weather 1 2 6 10
Between terms. 1 2 3 i 5
Before vacations 1 2 - —
UnpOpular items on menu 1 2 - -

 

 

*Two reapondents in the multi-choice menu group, and
one in the single-choice menu group indicated that they had
greater than normal attendance at examination periods.

61.

Cultural Contribution Qf_The Residence

Hall Food Service Program

 

Although not necessarily a dimension dealing with menu
selectivity, the objectives of the residence hall food serv-
ice program are not immaterial to a study dealing with resi-
dence hall food service in any aspect. Inasmuch as planning
foods that are pleasing to the student is a prime concern of
the food service administrator, so is his responsibility to
the student in developing good attitudes towards food and
eating. Furthermore, it is suspected that in dining halls
where an "educational program" is in effect poor attitudes
towards the food service on the part of students are
minimized.

The administrators were asked, "What contributions do
you feel that your present food service program is making to
the cultural development of your students?" The following
were typical responses:

1. ACquaint students with a wide variety of food, teach
them to appreciate the values of well-rounded, nutritious
meals, and to accept unfamiliar foods with different prepara-
tion methods, although it is oftentimes difficult to overcome
the "provincialism" in student food habits.(37).3S

2. Develop social graces by providing pleasant sur-

roundings conducive to good conversation (12), co-educational

 

35

The number of respondents who have made these and
related statements are enclosed in parentheses.

52.
dining (6), enforcing dress regulations (lu), training in
hostessing at special banquets, buffets, exchange dinners,
faculty dinners (1E), and family style dinners (5), offering
grace before meals (3), and intermingling with students of
many cultures (3).

3. Provide an area for training in work (2), planning
meals and special functions (2), working in student com-
mittees (3), developing creative skills indecorating the
dining hall (2), training home economic students (2).

Fourteen administrators stated that they contributed
little or nothing to the student's cultural develOpment in
their dining halls. One administrator candidly said that
"student mtitudes are strange." A few indicated that
cafeteria service was not conducive to cultural develOpment
(5); one said that small units feeding from 200-300 students
providing table service was most worthwhile from the stu-
dent's point of view; and several remarked, "contract feeding
does not breed good attitude;" however, it does "seem to
develop their (students') ability to gripe articulauiy, wit-
tily, and sharply."

The above responses indicate an area of study in which

further investigation is warranted.

63
Summary

Chapter IV has attempted to measure the hypothesis that
students are more satisfied when a selective menu is used in
the residence hall food service. Three dimensions have been
included in the investigation to determine student satisfac-
tion and menu selectivity. They are: (1) student communica-
tion in menu planning, (2) the effectiveness of such com-
munication determined by observing plate waste, and (3)
absenteeism.from.meals. A fourth dimension, the cultural
significance of the residence hall food service program has
been examined; although it does not necessarily have any
bearing upon menu selectivity, it is related to the question
of student satisfaction. Conclusions derived from the
questionnaire investigation are:

1. Whether the administrators use a single-choice menu,
or a multi-choice menu, they communicate with their students
before making up the menu. Many different media of communica-
tions are used, and most administrators have more than one
method of communication. The effectiveness of such come
munications, determined by plate waste observation, is adjudgai
to be equally good for both.menu groups.

2. Menu selectivity seems to have little relationship
to student absenteeism. Regardless of whether single-choice
menus or multi-choice menus are planned, the average per cent
student absenteeism per term are approximately the same; and
absenteeism is higher during weekends, holidays, and examina-

tion.periods to about the same extent. Although the type of

6A.
community in which the institution is located has an influence
on the type of menu used, it has no influence upon absenteeism.

3. Many administrators, using either type of menu
indicate that they believe food service in the residence
hall significantly contributes to the students' cultural
growth. They think that the food service program widens the
students! food experiences, develOps social grace, and pro-
vides an area for training in work.

However, more than a few administrators have indicated
their residence hall food service does not, in any way, con-
tribute to cultural growth, and frankly state that they find
student attitudes strange, or that contract feeding does not
develOp good attitude on the part of the student. Further

study in this area is merited.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

The purpose of this study was to discover the relation-
ship of menu selectivity pertaining to the factors of food
and labor costs, and the factors of student satisfaction.
Two main hypotheses formed the bases for this investigation:
(1) a single-choice menu was more economical to use from the
standpoint of food and labor costs; and (2) a multi-choice
menu was more satisfying to students as they were allowed to
exercise a selection function.

Chapter II contained a review of the related literature.
The related literature was sub-divided into two tepics:

1. The literature on menu planning and selectivity
showed that the use of limited menus was generally preferred
because cost control was greater, and because menu studies
indicated customer preferences were concentrated on not over
seven items. On the other hand, selective menus were noted
to reduce plate waste since the customer took only the food
he would eat.

2. The literature on food habit studies revealed that
student tastes were limited, and that they tended to accept
only familiar feeds. Other factors had a bearing on attitudes
directed toward food, which, in reality, had little to do

with food per g3. Such factors as need for periodic change

66.

of environment, restlessness, periods of tension had a
bearing on attitude. The method of food preparation also
influenced food acceptability.

Chapter III attempted to study the factors of food and
labor costs as they related to menu selectivity. The menus
were compared to find a relationship between selectivity and:
(1) state supported institutions, and privately endowed insti-
tutions, (2) a size influence on the menu used, (3) the menu
preferred by the administrators, (h) labor costs in the serv-
ice and.production of food, which included meals produced per
man-hour used, number of students served per minute through
the cafeteria line, and per cent of labor costs to gross
income; and (5) food costs and production control, which
included food production forecast methods; left over food con-
trol; the number of items, meals, and weekly frequency on
which choice was allowed; daily raw food budget allowance per
student; and per cent of food costs to gross income. The
study on food and labor costs were based upon.the data from
the questionnaire survey.

Chapter IV investigated the relationship of menu selec-
tivity and the following factors pertaining to student satis-
faction: (1) communication with students in.menu planning -
the methods used for communicating, verbal and non-verbal,
(2) the effectiveness of communication as determined by plate
waste observation, (3) student absenteeism, which included a’
comparison of the type of community in which the institutions

were located, the average absenteeism.per cent each.term, and

67.
abnormal absenteeism.periods; and (h) the contributions that
residence hall food service offer to the cultural growth of

the students. The information on student satisfaction and

selectivity was also taken from the questionnaire survey.
ggnclusions

The investigation.has borne out at least part of the
hypotheses used in.making this study. In some respects, the
conclusions differ. Conclusions, or observations, derived
from the study are:

l. The first hypothesis is that a single-choice menu is
more economical to use than.a multi-choice menu because of
lower food and labor costs. This has not been found to be
entirely true in residence hall food service operations as:
(a) costs were not the primary concern in.planning selective
or non-selective menu. No correlation was found between the
type of financial support received by the institution, and
the type of menu used. The assumption that there would be a
relationship between.menu selectivity and the number of
students fed, or size, was not valid; (b) labor costs were
found to be lower when a single-choice menu was used. It was
accounted for by the fact that meal productivity was higher
per man-hour of labor consumed, and that more students were
served per mdnute through the cafeteria line. The per cent of
labor cost to gross income was also lower for single-choice
menu.planners than for multi-choice menu users; (c) food

costs were found to be approximately the same for single-choice

68.

menu.users and multi-choice menu users. Both.menu groups

had about the same daily raw food budget allowance per

student. The multi-choice menu allowed students a wide
selection of food items on 50 per cent or more of the weekly
meals served, but the single-choice menu was not inflexible

as occasional choice was permitted. Forecasting food produc-
tion, and left over food control were equally difficult whether
single-choice, or multi-choice menus were employed. Thus

the assumption that food cost is lower when a single-choice
menu is used has not been found true.

2. The second hypothesis is that student satisfaction
is higher when a multi-choice menu is used. This statement
is purely a matter of individual opinion, observation, or
experience. Selective menus were not discovered to be any
more favorable to students than non-selective menus since:
(a) both groups of memplanners comicated with their
students before making up the menu. All used more than one
method, as consultations, committees, surveys, and others.
Plate waste observation showed that such communications were
equally effective for both single-choice and multi-choice
menu advocates; (b) menu selectivity had no relationship to
student absenteeism. Whether a single-choice menu, or a
multi-choice menu was employed, the average per cent of
absenteeism.per term.tnnded to be the same. At certain
periods as during examinations, holidays, weekends, campus
activities, absenteeism was shown to be higher than normal

for both.menu groups; and (c) many administrators in either

69.

menu group indicated that their residence hall food service
contributed to the/cultural growth of the students, but other
administrators indicated that their programs did not contri-
bute to cultural growth. More extensive investigation in
this area, rather than menu selectivity, was warranted to
discover the significance of student satisfaction to resi-

* dence hall food service.

3. It is concluded, from.an overview of the entire
investigation that the individual administrator with.his
knowledge of and skills in residence hall food service admin-
istration accounts for the comparative favorableness of the
menu, and the relationships of the menu to costs and student
satisfaction, inclusively. The data gathered from.the survey
showed that there were upper and lower limits in the statis-
tics of food cost, labor cost, absenteeism, among others, in
both.single-choice and multi-choice menu groups. Therefore,
whether the administrator prefers a single-choice menu or a
multi-choice menu becomes more a matter of personal policy,
or philosophy, in consideration of cost and student satisfac-

tion together.
Recommendations

In light of the findings of this study, the writer
makes these general suggestions for improving the food serv-
ice program of the residence hall, fully realizing the limi-
tations of his suggestions to Specific cases.

Because student tastes have been pointed out to be

70.

limited, it makes little difference whether or not choice

is permitted on the menu. Even when a single-choice menu

is used, new food items and different preparation methods

may be introduced, and occasional choice allowed at different
meals to relieve monotony. Therefore, since the single—choice
menu is generally shownto affect a greater rate of meal pro-
ductivity, or labor efficiency, the single-choice menu is
preferred by the author, with the qualifications that follow:

1. Other areas rather than menu selectivity, should
be studied as possibilities for improving student attitudes
toward residence hall food service. As far as possible,
much of the "institutional look" should be removed from the
residence hall dining room. For instance, using chinaware
without an institutionalized pattern, decorating the dining
room.with pictures, placing fresh flowers or foliage on the
tables, and anything else which will give the dining room
more of the "home" atmosphere will lessen the association of
institutional food in the student's mind to a degree.

2. Although the cafeteria style of service may be
necessary, the type of service may be varied occasionally
with other types of service, such as buffets, smorgasbords,
family style meals. This provides an Opportunity in the
dining room.for offering grace, and instituting good table
manners under the control of a semi-formal dining condition.
It is debatable whether a variation in service will increase
cost substantially. However, in the survey the author found

many institutions, both small and large, which did not

71.

consider service variation impractical from.a cost stand-
point. Several administrators stated that the extra effort
expended was worthwhile to improving student attitude.

3. The service of twenty meals per week, rather than
twenty-one meals may be desirable for institutions located
in areas with good commercial eating establishments easily
accessible to the students. The elimination of one meal,
perhaps the Sunday night dinner, permits a change of environ-
ment in the student's eating schedule. Price adjustments
should be made in the contract.

u/ h. Attempts should be made to develOp an educational
food program and positive action taken to introduce students
to greater knowledge of foods and nutrition. Head resi-
dents and student counselors in the residence hall should
also be given a liberal "food education" and be encouraged
to guide students toward a positive attitude regarding food
and food habits. It is imperative that an educated adult
recognize the importance of proper nutrition and good eating
practices.

V/5. Every effort should be continued to be exerted in
discovering what the student will or will not eat before
making up the menu in order to satisfy as many students as
possible. Pleasing everyone is an acknowledged impossibility,
and the food service personnel should not be discouraged when
there are criticisms, but continue to strive to do a better

Job. This is not wishful thinking, but rather a sound

72.

philosophy that is necessary to the future growth of resi-
dence hall food service. Unlimited improvements can be made
in the present food service programs of the college and

univers ity res idence halls .

BIBLIOGRAPHY
A. BOOKS

Brodner, Joseph, Howard M. Carlson, and Henry T. Maschal.
Profitable Food and Beverage eration. New York:
Ahrens PubIIEEing Company,‘Inc., 1955. h2h.pp.

 

Chartrand, Haurice. The Design g£_Cafeteria Counters.
Worcester, Massachusetts: The Norton Company, 1557,

76 pp-

Edwards, Allan L. Statistical Anal sis. New Ybrk:
Rinehart and Company,_lnc.,l9 . 360 pp.

Spurr, William.A., Lester S. Kellogg, and Jehn H. Smith»
Business and Economic Statistics. Homewood, Illinois:
RiChard D. Irwin, Inc., 1933. 379 pp.

 

West, Bessie B., and LeVelle Wood. Food Service in.
Institutions. New Ybrk: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.,

:93;- 399 PP.
Be GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

United States Chamber of Commerce. Establishing and
Operating a Restaurant. Washington: Government

Printing Office, 1957.

C. PERIODICALS

Becker, Henrietta, and Dorothy Murakami. "Some People
Don't Like Fish," The Modern Hespital, 82:120,
April, 195”. ‘

Bloetjes, Nary K. "Layouts for Food Service," Colle e
and University Business, l9:h6-SO, August, 1555.

Carey, Maria G. "Food Service Must Serve Two Purposes,"
The Mbdern Hospital, 88:116-7, April, 1957.

Dove, W. F. "DevelOping Food Acceptance Research,” Science,

Fairbrook, Paul. "Eleven Suggestions for Adding Interest
to meals, Colle e and University Business, 23:39-h0,
August. 1957. ‘P

74.

Ferrey, Dorotha L. "Menu Planning," College and University
Businesp, 7:29-31, December, l9h9.

Foldi, Ann E. "Dietary Service Caters to Individual
Food Tastes," Hospitals, Journal of the American
Hospital Association, April 1, 1957, p. 8h.

Herman, Harold. "The Food Service Picture," College and
UpiversityyBusinesp, 9:h6-7, October, 1950.

Huddleson, Mary P. "Dieticians Touch All the Bases at
Annual Meeting in Milwaukee," Modern Hospital,
87:116, December, 1956.

Jones, Edith A. "Efficient Food Service Requires Step by
Step Planning," Colle e and University Business
20:53-6, March, l9§5.

Kotschevar, Lendal H. "Three Ways to Increase Production,"
Institutions Magazine, h2:6,150, March, 1958.

lamb, Nuna. "Food Preferences of College WOmen," JOurnal
pf the American Dietetic Association1 30:1120- ,
Nbvember, l9§E.

Idchtenfelt, R. J. "Good Food is Not Enough," College and
University Businegp, 17:50-2, July, l95h.

Person, Mary. ”Menu Suggestions From the Students," College
and University Business, 9:h8-9, October, 1950

Pinney, Virginia. "There's No Magic to Preparing Cycle
Menus," Epspitalp, Journal 9; the American Hospital
Association, January 1, 1957, p. 6 - .

Terrell, Margaret E. "What the Future May Hold for the
College Kitchen," College and University Business,
20:50, August, 1956.

vawter, Helen, and Frank Konishi. "Food Acceptance by
Soldiers Under an Ad Libitum.Regimen " JOurnal g;_
the Amprican Dietetic Association, 3£:36-E§, January,
1658.

wentworth, Norris W. "The Role of the Dietician " College
and Universitnyusiness, 7:28, December, 19 9.
D. NEWSPAPER

Mead, Margaret. "A New Look at Your Food Habits," The
Detroit Free Press Parade, February 23, 1958, p. 5.

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING

 

SCHOOL OF HOTEL 0 RESTAURANT AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT - KELLOGG CENTER

FOOD SERVICE SURVEY
February 28, 1958

Dear Housing Director:

Dr. 3. Earl Thompson has suggested that I contact you asking yetrhelp
in conducting a survey of residence hall food service programs. This study
is undertaken for the purpose of determining existing menu policies, prac-
tices, and general trends. W interest in this area stems from a newly
appointed position as Food Service Director for the University of Denver's
residence halls.

Your cooperation by taking 15 minutes to complete the questionnaire
will help insure more valid data, which is to be used for completing a
master's thesis. An abstract of the study will be sent to participants if
requested.

Individuals and institutions will not 23 identified with specific
answers. However, your institution wilt-Se aclmowIedged for its partici-
pation. Please answer all qmstions in terms of your experience, follow-
ing the food service policies of your institution.

Thank you for your help,

Charles I. Gee

 

Definitions 2% Terms Used is 3133 m

Single-choice menu: A menu that does not loffer the student selection of
food ems, except occasionally as on Fridays for religious reasons.

Hulti-choice menu: A menu that offers the student a choice of more than
one ype salad, entree, or dessert in at least 51 percent of the
total meals served each week.

APPENDIX B
I. GENERAL DATA

A. Position of person supplying data:

 

B. Number of students fed daily dm'ing school year: men women.
C. Type of institution: __H'ivately endowed, __ State supported.

D. Location of the'institution: ' ___New England, Mid-Atlantic, ___S, Atlantic,
___N. Central, ___S. Central,“ *Ifountain, ___Pa'cific.

E. Type of community in which institution is located: ___Metropolitan, “Other.

fie ENU ELICES
A. Which type of menu do you use?

(1) ____multi-choice
“single—choice
:other (Please qualify):

(2) Does the number of students fed have a bearing on the type of menu used?

J93: .310.
B. From a productiqp point-of-view, which type is preferable?

(1 ) ”single-choice
:multi-choice

(2) On what factors do you base your opinion?

lower food cost
lower labor cost
ease of production

*

___ease in planning
our personal preference

Ethan (Please explain):

1

C. Do you have a basis for determining student likes and dislikes of menu
items planned? yes, __ no.

(1) If your answer is yes, how?

student preference committee
___suggestion boxes

:opinion surveys

consultations, group or individuals
:other methods (Hesse explain):

I00.

0‘ uv-l

'0
.o
D
I.
'\
I
I
O
I
s
- e. . o o
. ~'
A
.e
,.

77.

I

(2) Is the method used effective, gudging from plate waste?
___yes, ____no, ____sometimes, ____don't know.
Do How often is a choice offered to the students?
____from 5 to 10 meals weekly
over 10 meals weekly

___occasionally, as when unpopular foods are served, or when there are
“leftovers ~ - please explain:

E. If a multi-choice menu is used, on what items is a selection offered?

(1) ____appetizer ___entree ____breakfast cereals
____salad *dessert fruit Juices/fruits
____vegetables ____beverage “bread products

(2) On which meals is a choice offered? ____B, ____L, ____De
F. How many students are served per minute through the cafeteria line?

“EFT—W
A. How do you forecast the amount of food to prepare?

(1)—headcount taken at each meal, with allowances for special events
—'past experience (intuition)
use of cyclical menus

records kept of amounts served and leftover

other :

(2) What amounts of leftovers (usable and disposable) remain from the
serving counter normally?

less than 10%

less than 20%
Ease than 35%

____over 35%

B. What average percent of absenteeism do you have per term?

(1) ___under 5% _
from 5 to 10%
from 15 to 20%
:over 20%

 

 

 

. . . . .
. ~ , ' O
s
' .
.I ‘ . .
I . .
n V ‘ . A.
' a '9\ .
. a
‘ I
‘ .
w -» I.
U
. u
. g A a ‘ " ' I
. l h . ' '
1 ‘ ‘ . .
. I . " f
. ._'\- f u
. ‘ ‘1 . ‘
a. o ». 'e ‘
. ..'..‘ .., .. . - - - -_ “'-..‘.' - :
o .-.
' , .. , .u
. ' ‘ . A . ' u
, . ' A u '
n a ‘ .f'. '
' A > . ‘. s
., ' ' . . ' .i
0’ n ' . ‘
’. . .- .- ‘ '
, , .
.: . .. ‘. . " ‘ ' ' ' ‘ '
e ‘ .- .
_ . l-I .
l
‘ \
. ‘ - a ~‘ ‘ a - . ' ' l
. ~ " ‘I ' ’ ‘- ‘ .. ' ‘
1 - ' ' '
.av . - t -
I ' .
u . . .. . . -. ' : . n - ,-"..' -' ‘ -' " ' I "
I . "I ‘ ’ 1
anus.“
. , _ . .nu . u ‘ '
. _ '-
.. .
‘ ~ . ‘ . ‘ a.
u l ‘
' . A . '
‘ ‘ . .
I
I . . . ~
-. l' '1 C I I ' ,
' . . ‘ ’ -". . - - - "
. .y . , e
’ ‘ . . ,.. e .
...lv~ .
.- -- d
s a. . .A . “ 'I -

78.
(2) Is absenteeism greater at certain periods? __yes, ___no. If yes, when?

examination periods
holidays
“beginning of new terms
____weekends
____weekdays
others (Please explain)

Winn pg FOOD PREPARATION pp SERVICE

 

 

A. Hours of work per week by food preparation employees:
full-time employees, part-time employees.

B. Hours of work per week by dining room and counter employees:

 

 

 

full-time employees, Jart-time employees.
72‘1ma Please check appropriate statements.
» you buy pro-fabricated meats you buy all baked goods
, you operate own butcher shop you buy only bread and rolls
you use prepared mixes __you operate own bakery

VI. FINAWE Your institutiqn will 39: 22 identified is any manner.

 

 

A. What is your daily raw food budget per student per day? __

B. What are your operating percentages? (as nearly accurate as possible based
on'past current year performance; for example, food h1.5%, labor 39.7%...»
If figures are available for men's and women's units, please include)

Average-all units: Men's units: Women's units:
FOOdeeseeeseeoo
Lebanon...»
Othereeseeeeeoo
Net Income..."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wm EDUCAT ION

What contributions do you feel that your present food service program is
making to the cultural development of your students?

 

(If you need more space, please use reverse side of sheet)

 

 

.-
'u
e
n
a

r.

APPENDIX C
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

OF AGRICULTURE AND APPLIED SCIENCE 0 EAST LANSING

 

SCHOOL OF HOTEL 0 RESTAURANT AND INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT 0 KELLOGG CENTER

26 mrch 1958

Dear Housing Director:

The returns from the nary housing directors, food service directors
and food service supervisors have been exceedingly gratifying.

93 of these people representing colleges and universities in

[:8 states have given generously of their time to participate in the
Food Service Survey.

Because of the scarcity of material written on residence hall food
services, however, I feel that even more replies are necessary to
validate the study. I would like to include your institution in
this ”We

Although I realise how busy you are, won't you please give 15 minutes
of your time to complete the questionnaire? Your help is sincerely
appreciated. ,

Thank you,

Charles I. 099

0mm
E110.

we

’- ': V.
$7.7. I I“ 1“ ‘l I f
I" \\ ,-- .4

F” ‘ ‘.; * V”"‘1

'8
‘1'
or )- 3 ?" 51'” —;
“V a‘ 09 a

.1: .173. ..
J’ 09

15 Jun 56

‘15 Jul 59
9 Aug g, 5

q
Ape—r“ 5’ mil—we- :1 if f

’MAR 30 1961 a A

:‘j .4. 1""
AAA/234962 3%“ 3;,

5 ‘ e

 

 

  

HAY11**"83
WA 103.
‘32,,

 

 

 

 

 

In

Ifu

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

 

II!" III I111 Illllll

312931015 5066