MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN SUPPLEMENT” i ! IIIIATE R I ARE: IN BACK OF BOOK PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 6/01 c:/ClRCJDateDue.p65-p.15 '. cj‘ A SYSTEM APPROACH TO REDESIGNING A CANADIAN .— MILITARY FOOD SERVICE FACILITY BY Jean B. Liberty \ . A PROBLEM Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Institution Administration I 1969 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is deeply grateful to Professor Gladys Knight for her enthusiasm, encouragement and willing assistance during the preparation and formulation of this study. The writer also expresses appreciation to Professor Katherine Hart and Dr. Grace Miller for their support and advice. Appreciation is also expressed to the Canadian Armed Forces for the appointment to the postgraduate program. ***** ii PREFACE This study is an attempt to illustrate that the planning or redesigning of food facilities involves more than shifting equipment, renovating departments or re- training personnel. Certain fundamental information and analysis are pertinent to successful planning. The author, a Canadian Forces Food Service Officer, elected to analyse the layout of an existing Canadian Forces kitchen. The motivating factor was simply a desire to apply principles and procedures to structure a more efficient lay- out both in terms of present needs and speculative future growth. The study, generated from personal interest and concern, has been meaningful and far exceeded expectations. The author recognizes definite limitations in the sc0pe and conclusiveness of this particular study yet feels that it represents a reference tool if and when the organization contemplates new construction or facility renovations. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PREFACE LIST OF LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O PLATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. II. III. PLANNING FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES . . . Management Involvement in Facility Design Planning Procedures . . . . . . . . Define objectives . . . . . . . Determine operations . . . . . . Analyze menu pattern . . . . . . Determine equipment requirements Determine areas . . . . . . . . Allocate space . . . . . . . . . Construct flow pattern . . . . . Application phase . . . . . . . THE REDESIGN OF A MILITARY FOOD SERVICE FACILI’I'Y O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Redesigning Procedures . . . . . . . Objectives identified . . . . . Specific functions isolated . . Calculation of space requirements Menu analysis for equipment needs Development of the flow pattern Development of the renovated layout A CRITIQUE OF THE TWO LAYOUTS . . . . The Original Layout (Plate 1) . . . The PrOposed Layout (Plate 2) . . . iv Page ii iii vi vii p 16 17 18 19 20 28 38 39 4O 4O 46 Chapter Page Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . 51 Increased functionalism . . . . . . . . 51 Increased production potential . . . . . 53 Increased manpower utilization . . . . . 53 Increased flexibility . . . . . . . . . 53 APPENDIX: THE PRELIMINARY PLANNING GUIDE FOR THE MILITARY FOOD SERVICE OPERATION . . . . . . 55 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 10. LIST OF FIGURES The master menu pattern . . . . . . . . . A sample daily menu . . . . . . . . . . . Cook's battery: equipment required to process menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bakesh0p: equipment required to process me nu O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Salad preparation: equipment required to process menu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cook's battery: consolidated equipment needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bakesh0p: consolidated equipment needs . Salad preparation: consolidated equipment needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Incoming flow and distance relationship chart: the original layout . . . . . . . Incoming flow and distance relationship chart: the proposed layout . . . . . . . vi Page 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 45 50 LI ST OF PLATES PLATE 1. The original kitchen layout (found in pocket on inside of back cover) 2. The proposed layout (found in pocket on inside of . back cover) vii INTRODUCTION The ultimate goal of this redesign system is to achieve maximum internal operating efficiency. The end product takes shape as a new or modified kitchen layout. The approach demands logical and systematic identification of the variables involved, decisions as to entity relation— ships and integration of the numerous parts into a final efficient plan. This redesign program, set up to accomplish Specific objectives, is composed of several elements. For the pro- gram to be maximally effective all the isolated elements must be integrated into a SYSTEM which will accomplish the intended objeCtives in a manner that is most efficient and economical. Webster defines a system as "an organized or established procedure; a group of components organized to accomplish a given purpose". The systems approach as applied to this redesign program means focussing upon the elements or components, then the evaluation of each and finally synthesizing the decisions into a complete whole. This redesign system moves through four major processes. These are as follows: Stage 1: The preplanning and decision making phase. In this stage the purpose of the system is defined, objectives are clarified and requirements are analysed. Stage 2: The research phase during which the components or entities are isolated and analysed in terms of inter- relationships and contribution to each other as well as to the whole or overall scheme. Stage 3: The synthesis (redesign) of the kitchen layout. Stage 4: The assessment of the effectiveness of the redesign. The first and most critical stage in the redesign system is a factual, objective operational analysis. Decisions here must be based upon actual and/or forecasted requirements then translated into a planning prospectus to guide and control the system formation. If requirement analysis is not completed, there is a risk of excluding relevant Operational functions, equipment or procedures. The next step in the redesign system is the iso- lation of entities requiring detailed analysis. In this program the elements under study include an assessment of the kitchen areas or departments, an analysis of the menu pattern, an estimate of equipment requirements, and estimate of space requirements and a structuring of an efficient flow pattern. The thorough evaluation of each component provides the basis for decisions relative to efficient utilization of facilities. In stage three the numerous separate decisions are incorporated or synthesized, resulting in the completed renovated layout. The evaluation process in the redesign system is concerned with an assessment of Operational effectiveness and efficiency. Evaluation in this particular study can be considered as having two parts. First, the redesigned lay— _out can be assessed in terms of its ability to meet the stated objectives. Secondly, the renovated plan can be evaluated in terms of its degree of efficiency as compared with the original layout. CHAPTER I PLANNING FOOD SERVICE FACILITIES The food service industry is a large and growing segment Of the nation's economy. Among service industries, that Of food service is approaching a total annual volume of thirty billion dollars (11). Concurrent with industrial growth a steady increase in labor and other costs has been recognized. Formerly, raw food costs represented the larg- est single expense in food service operations but outlay for labor in recent years demands a growing percentage of the total operating budget. .As the wage—cost spiral continues to develop, food service managers must encourage reduction of the food preparation, cooking and serving costs. Labor- saving techniques and devices, mechanization and changes in Operational procedures are being evaluated for their ability to Offset higher costs. In this regard emphasis lOgically rests upon the design and construction of highly efficient production and service facilities. The quantity food service kitchen must Ibe designed tO COpe with its highly specialized functions. IBut the success with which these functions are accomplished vvill be effected by the layout in which the facility .Operates (9). An improved production layout promotes effec- tive work performance to a high standard and at minimum cost. Management Involvement in Facility Design The commitment to create and present an efficient food service facility demands the services Of an analytical management team. Whether the decision is to rehabilitate an existing establishment or tO design a new facility, it is desirable to assemble qualified planning personnel. The team approach is recognized as an intelligent manoeuvre and the starting point for detailed facility design (5). The dietitian or food service administrator, the architect, engineer and financial administrator should unite their efforts and interests in planning the food service enter- prise. A committee with knowledgeable representation of each aspect Of facility planning is more likely to produce a satisfactory plant (9). Regardless of the type or size Of the food service facility, initial research into the important and influenc- ing factors reduces the risk Of overlooking essential and costly details. During this preliminary planning stage, discussion and deve10pment Of principal objectives is cru- cial to the ultimate success Of the Operation. .A thoroughly detailed planning guide and master prospectus for the over- all project represent the first responsibility for the plan— ning team (3). As discussions and meetings continue, it is possible and beneficial to compile an organized checklist of the principal ideas or factors to be considered throughout the systematic planning process. While still in the initial stages Of planning it is particularly important to consider long-term or future endeavors. The primary principle in today's design for tomorrow's food facility is that Of flexibility (6). Planning committee failure to anticipate and allow for future development restricts the ability Of the Operation to respond to change. Flexibility implies mobility, adaptabil- ity and modification. In food facilities design flexibility in terms of methods, equipment, materials and space govern the potential Of the Operation to accommodate tomorrow's activity. In general, the basic plan must be thorough enough to encompass immediate requirements and flexible enough to COpe with continuing technological advancement. In summary, planning the food service Operation to be efficient from the outset and well into the future requires the creative thought and pooled interests Of tOpL management, food administrators, architects and construction engineers. Planning Procedures While there is no universal approach to the task of facility planning, several knowledgeable individuals (9,3,2, 8) have promulgated their general strategy and Offer guide— lines for the less experienced administrators. The informa- tive presentations highlight identical basic concepts and processes involved in facility planning. The systems approach provides the Opportunity to sequentially analyse the concepts and processes, the interrelationships and finally to synthesize the component elements into an appro- priate, meaningful plan. The following section identifies common Objects or elements in the facility design system and directs attention to the influence each entity bears with regard to the total system. Define Objectives It is a rational and intelligent approach to estab- lish Objectives or goals very early in the planning program. These statements Of intended terminal structure guide the efforts of the management team toward an orderly and effec- tive conclusion of the project within the prescribed frame— work. Nebulous, ill-defined Objectives erode the foundation Of the total design system and curtail the ability to accurately identify and analyse the interrelated factors. The immediate and long-term policies, budgets and programs Of the entire Operation should be reflected in the goals established at this time (5). In addition to giving direc- Ition to team efforts, Objectives further provide a tool to measure the effectiveness of the final, consolidated design. The primary goal of food service facility planning is the efficient housing and placement Of required functions, personnel, equipment and materials to minimize production costs and maintain high quality standards (1). Determine Operations Having established realistic Objectives, the sub- sequent procedure is to decide upon the activities necessary to accomplish the goals. Since food service facilities are individual and vary considerably even within a type classi- fication, the decisions made at this stage will reflect such individuality. Operations common to most settings include menu planning, commodity purchasing, cost accounting, food preparation, method Of service, sanitation and dishwashing procedures. .Additional Operations peculiar to a Specific establishment, such as hospital tray service, should also be clearly identified and analysed at this stage. .As well as present needs, the planning committee should be concerned with future trends and growth potential. New food products, new cooking methods, equipment deve10p- ments and policy changes could impose a requirement for facility adjustment (9). .Forethought in listing the present Operations and in determining the possible future adaptations places the facility in a better position for survival. Analyze menu pattern Before the sketching of the actual kitchen is under- taken, the SCOpe of the menu to be served must be determined and subjected to minute analysis. This step is undoubtedly the most tedious and time-consuming but nonetheless repre— sents a critical stage in the design system and must not be ignored. Because Of the interrelatedness Of menu pattern with other significant elements in the system, the time devoted to a critical investigation is highly justified. The menu format and subsequent content analysis enlighten the planners, for during this procedure the profile Of the facility begins to unfold. ‘It is the menu which describes the size, design and layout and production procedures. It is the menu which determines the type, number Of pieces, size and location of equipment. It is the menu which governs labor requirements. Menu analysis is therefore an imperative procedure in the design system and limited atten— tion tO its influence can be detrimental to the envisioned efficient plan. Determine equipment requirements The selection Of kitchen and service equipment should begin only after the planning team has made a care- ful analysis of the needs Of the installation (10). The factors to influence the decision include type Of menu, volume and turnover Of diners, type of service, type of fuel, budget and available Space. 10 Thomas (12) describes a systematic approach for the determination Of equipment requirements firmly based upon menu Content analysis. Each product on the menu is studied to ascertain quantity, type and size Of equipment required to process that item. The time period over which each machine is needed, the time Of day for its use and the maximum load factors on each item Of equipment are integral considerations in the calculations. By estimating the maximum production demands placed on Single equipment items, it is then possible tO calculate the total equipment needs. In order to correctly select and Size the equipment, the committee must depend upon both the menu analysis and decisions concerning Operation tendencies. .Extensive use of convenience food products such as soup and sauce bases, frozen vegetables, pre-fabricated meats or pre-prepared vegetables reduces both the requirement for and size Of certain types Of equipment. Determine areas Kitchen design is characterized by a highly depart- mentalized layout. The activities begin with materials at receiving which are subjected to storage, tranSportation, processing, assembly and distribution. With this insight it is possible tO identify the following departments or functions: 11 1. Receiving and storage 2. Meat processing 3. Vegetable pre-preparation 4. Salad preparation 5. ,Main cooking 6. Bakeshop 7. Service and dining room 8. Pot and pan washing 9. Dishwashing 10. Garbage storage. The existence Of some areas in a specific installa- tion solely depends upon the decisions reached during the initial survey and preliminary planning stage. The changing attitudes in food procurement and preparation are reflected in the departmental structure. .FOr example, the requirement for meat processing and on-site baking could be greatly reduced or completely eliminated. .When area requirements are under review, decisions should be based upon present and future intentions for the facility, plus the affect Of cur— rent and projected trends. The following illustrations draw attention to the need for critical thought in determining departmental structure: 1. Pre-fabricated and portion cut meats are becoming widely accepted. Fully equipped meat processing rooms and abundant refrigeration for carcass meats are being eliminated or modified. 12 2. Vegetable peelers and cutters are disappearing from the kitchens as food administrators purchase pre- peeled and cut raw vegetables. 3. Bakeshops are eliminated or modified through the utilization of commercially prepared products, cake and cookie mixes, prepared pie fillings, packaged puddings or frozen pastries. 4. The extensive variety in and general acceptance of frozen food items is increasing the demand on low temperature storage. 5. The use Of mechanical garbage disposals at point of use replaces the need for refrigerated garbage rooms. ”A study is required within this dimension to clarify the direction Of the Operation and its immediate and future needs in food production and service. If enlargement, modification and adaptation are probable, surveys made before the design is implemented would be helpful and less expensive in the long-term View. Allocate Space Each square foot Of space in a food service Opera- tion can be considered a fixed cost. Profitable Operation, therefore, demands that space be carefully calculated in the design system. TOO little space results in a cluttered, inefficient Operation; conversely, Space beyond actual requirement is costly (10). Space allowances should be l3 balanced in terms Of: (a) proposed permanence and future eXpanSion of the facility, (b) acureness of the need for a specific function, (c) essentials for Operating efficiency, (d) desirable standards in terms Of appearance, sanitation and high quality production and service, and (e) immediate and future costs, depreciation, upkeep and maintenance (9). There is no panacea for the determination of space needs. However, Laschober (10), Frolich (7), Kotschevar and Terrell (9) and Dana (4) each Offer assistance with the use and interpretation Of formulas developed for space calcula- tions. The formulas are presented as guides and must be treated as such. It is doubtful that any one formula for space allowance meets the needs Of all installations. To reach a decision in this matter the committee must be influ- enced by the type and size Of departmental equipment, the frequency Of supply deliveries, the kind Of food used, whether fresh, frozen or canned, and the completeness Of processing to be done. Planners must use logic and judgment throughout their analysis of Space requirements. Construct flow pattern Essentially, an efficient food service layout is one in which food travels the shortest possible distance from receiving to service and the labour performed involves a minimum Of walking and unproductive effort. The use Of area and equipment templates will aid in determining the best 14 relationships for effective flow of work. The intent is to construct an overall and individual work center flow in which the route taken by the worker or materials is both direct and in prOper sequence with a minimum Of criss- crossing and back-tracking. The flow most suitable for a specific Operation is not necessarily suited to a second Operation. Once again individual facility needs must be surveyed. Nonetheless, common principles are significant in establishing the flow pattern regardless of the type and complexity Of the plant. The flow should be planned SO that delay, storage and han- dling Of materials in processing and serving has been eliminated as much as possible. Proper flow dictates minimum Spacing between machines, maximum utilization Of equipment and economical expenditure Of Space. The most effective and efficient flow pattern constructed limits the travel distances for both the worker and materials and pro- motes production and service within the shortest possible time. Analysis Of route charts at this time enables the planners to visualize the work center interrelationships and aids in the final association or contact Of one with the other. Bottlenecks and excess backtracking can be avoided before the proposed design is consOlidated. .Decisions related to department and equipment location become much more confident when supported by work flow evaluations. APEIication phase 15 Canadian military food service staff Officers are required to monitor tions for bases and that high standards economy in manpower the efficiency Of food service Opera- units within their command and ensure are attained with the greatest possible and supplies. Staff Officer responsi- bility further involves a requirement to monitor and provide direction on all unit kitchen and dining area designs. TO gain the theoretical and practical knowledge related to kitchen layout the best experience is that Of actual involvement and concern with the creating Of a new or a rehabilitated facility. Chapter 2 details the program- ming and sketching experiences encountered with the renova- tion Of an existing military facility. CHAPTER II THE REDESIGN OF A MILITARY FOOD SERVICE FACILITY In creating a fOOd service establishment one Of three methods is normally selected. First, a new building is erected; second, an existing facility is substantially altered, or third, an existing structure is slightly modi— fied. The first method is the most practical in terms Of functional use of space and Often is the least eXpensive in terms Of long range investment. In fOOd service planning the desire for straight line flow patterns also makes the first method the most desirable. In contrast, both the second and third method introduce a need for financial stability to Offset the renovation costs. Additionally, the ability to establish efficient, factory-type production flow can be seriously hindered. .Despite the stated and implied advantages tO method number one, the remaining two approaches Offer a dynamic challenge to explore and improve upon a facility while subject to actual restrictions and limitations. .For this study either Of the three methods might have been selected, the first encouraging the creation of a totally new facility 16 l7 and the second and third method presenting the Opportunity to redevelOp a site. Method number two, substantial alter— ation tO an existing facility, was selected. This report is concerned with the redesign of an existing Canadian Forces Junior Ranks dining area. The fOOd service Operation selected is a permanent accommodation responsible for the preparation and serving of daily meals to one thousand active military personnel. This Operation is neither a profit-making establishment nor a hospital. Emphasis throughout the study rests within the kitchen and back-Of-the—house area and no attempt has been made at this time to remodel the dining rooms, the dishwashing area, nor the serving line. Foremost in the planner's mind was func- tionalism Of redesign, efficiency of the kitchen, effective- ness Of the labour force and the possibility Of future expansion or additional alterations. Redesigning Procedures The task was to remodel the present kitchen wherein large quantity food preparation and cooking activities con- tinue thirteen hours per day, seven days each week. (The Operation is in the form Of two cafeteria lines and dining rooms and is maintained for the purpose Of providing meals for the one thousand, or more, younger military personnel. .Appendix A provides summarized background information related to the Operation and represents the preliminary 18 planning guide establiShed as the initial step in the explo- ration. Through application Of the planning principles expressed throughout Chapter I it was possible to system— atically develop a renovated site. In this section, the essential steps involved in planning the redesigned facility, the current trends of the industry and the newer ideas of kitchen planning consultants are presented. Objectives identified The goal Of any efficient food service kitchen is to prepare, cook and serve food meeting the highest possible standards with a minimum Of labour, effort and exertion. The physical layout Of the plant in which the Operation is housed plays a most critical role in achieving this goal. The Objective of this specific project was tO improve the Operation of the facility by: a. increasing functionalism Of the over-all kitchen Operation b. encouraging faster and more efficient production c. encouraging more effective manpower utilization d. minimizing unproductive effort, and ' e. encouraging Operational mobility, flexibility and growth. In essence, the envisioned improvement was to elim- inate wasteful application of human effort, materials, equip- ment and facilities and gain maximum return for each unit Of effort, money and time expended. 19 TO meet the stated Objectives and subsequently attempt tO create an adequate and efficient kitchen layout, a research pattern was established and considerable prelim- inary investigation completed before the renovated kitchen appeared on the drawing board. Specific functions isolated An examination Of the preliminary planning guide and the blueprint Of the existing facility emphasized the requirement to plan for the following functions or areas in the kitchen and back Of the house: 10. Receiving Bulk storage Refrigeration and low temperature storage Meat processing Vegetable and salad preparation Main cooking Bakeshop Potwashing Sanitation--aervoids, mop truck storage, dry and refrigerated garbage storage Miscellaneous areas a. Offices b. employee facilities c. miscellaneous storage. 20 The next step was to estimate space allotments for each Of the functions or areas identified. .Calculation Of space requirements Decisions pertaining to space allowance for kitchen and back of the house Operations were made relative to the functions that had been identified. Since the project involVed renovation to an existing facility, the outline Of the external walls provided the skeletal structure and auto- matically restricted the total area for redevelOpment. .A measurement Of the kitchen yielded an area allowance Of approximately 7,047 square feet which became the_base from which the remaining space calculations were determined. Thereafter it was possible to estimate square footage requirements for bulk storage, refrigeration, meat process- ing, vegetable and salad preparation, main cooking, baking and potwashing. Published articles and texts provide useful percent- age figures for determining space allocations. Laschober (10) cautions, however, that percentage figures are averages drawn from many test groups and designers. In using the figures, suitable allowances must be made according to the needs Of the Specific Operation. The foremost determining factor will be the complexity Of the menu pattern which establishes the equipment requirements and work center activities. Each Operation has its unique concerns and 21 should be treated as an individual entity. Kotschevar and Terrell (9) suggest that space allowances Should be calcu- lated in terms of volume and type of service, size and amount of equipment, number of workers required, space for needed supplies and Space fOr adequate traffic and work aisles. Authors are in agreement that the amount of space required must be influenced by individual operational char- acteristics and there is no rule of thumb. .Accordingly, planners have access to recommended allowances but judgment based upon Specific demands must be applied in the final analysis. ~At this stage percentage figures and formula are introduced Since they did provide this planner with con- venient criteria for space allocation decisions. 1. Bulk storage. The volume and type of items received, the accessibility to the market, the frequencies of deliveries and the expected amount of food to be stored will influence the size of the storage area. Laschober (10) grants 10 percent frOm the back of the house for dry storage. He further suggests that the store room area should be cal- culated to hold a maximum thirty day supply of goods. Laschober proposes a rule of thumb which is to calculate the meal load for the heaviest day anticipated and divide by two, thus obtaining the square footage required for a thirty day storage period. Two week and one week storage requirements can be calculated as fractions of the thirty day total. 22 For the food service facility under study, bulk storage Space estimate obtained was 750 square feet. Laschober's conclusions, frequency of deliveries to the facility, size of containers, variety in the nature of the stored food and non-food items and volume of meals served were all interrelated in reaching the decision. 2. Refrigerated and low temperature storage. The space needed for refrigerated and low temperature storage once again varies with each individual facility. Frolich (7) stipulates that one to two cubic feet per person served would be a starting point for refrigeration estimates. Planners, however, must consult the preliminary planning guide and interrelate such factors as frequency of deliv- eries, extent of frozen food usage, type of menu and prep- aration procedures. The American Gas Association (1) offers volume of storage guidelines for each of the three types of refriger— ated storage required per typical meal when the use of fresh items is at a peak. The factors prOposed, however, vary quite significantly between institutions and much depends upon the interpretation of the phrase "typical meal". Typical volumes discussed by the Association are as follows: Meat and poultry . . . 0.0lO-0.030* Dairy . . . 0.007-0.015* Vegetables and fruit . . . 0.020-0.040* *Cubic feet per meal. 23 The formula published by American Gas takes into account the useful refrigerator storage height, the factor of usable space and the factor of lost space of the exterior walls and walls between compartments. Kotschevar and Terrell (9) estimate that space allo- cation during preliminary planning may be as follows: Meat and poultry . . . 20 to 35% Vegetable and fruit . . . 30 to 35% Dairy products . . . 20 to 25% Frozen foods . . . 10 to 25% Carry over foods . . . 5 to 10% They further advise that some planners may find it IdeSirable to work in terms of fifteen to twenty cubic feet of refrigeration per one hundred complete meals served. Or, alternately, an allowance of one to one and one—half cubic feet of usable refrigerator space for every three meals served could be considered. While drawing attention to three methods of estimating refrigeration and low tempera- ture storage, Kotschevar and Terrel stress the need to apply the percentage or factors given in direct relation to Spe- cific needs of the installation. Laschober (10) bases calculations upon the meal load for the heaviest day of Operation. With his formula, the meal load is first multiplied by the average weight of food served per person each meal (two pounds). The result of this computation is multiplied by three to give the total weight of food served during the heaviest day. -At this point the planner must decide how many days of supplies will be 24 under refrigeration. The total weight of food served during the heaviest day, multiplied by the number of days of stor- age gives an estimate of the maximum weight of food to be stored. The weight calculation can then be divided by the shelf Space factor thus providing a fairly accurate estimate of the total amount of shelf space needed. The total space allowance can then be broken down as follows: Meat and poultry . . . . . . 35% Vegetable . . . . . . 35% Dairy . . . . . . 20% Frozen foods . . . . . . 10% Each of the foregoing methods was used in determin- hing refrigeration and low temperature storage required in the renovated facility. The resulting calculations were not significantly different one from the other and final deci- sions were based upon a judgment of actual needs of the facility, both immediate and future. .While applying_the percentages published by Kotschevar and Terrell and Laschober, the planner elected 35 percent for meat and poultry refriger— ation, 30 percent for vegetable and fruit, 20 percent for dairy products and 15 percent for frozen food storage. Translated into square footage estimates, the refrigeration and low temperature storage requirements for the renovated facility were as follows: Meat and poultry . . . 161.7 square feet Vegetable and fruit . . . 138.6 square feet Dairy products . . . 92.4 square feet Frozen foods . . . 69.3 square feet 25 3. Meat processing. Many military installations continue to process carcass meat into usable portions. To meet the requirements of this Operation it is necessary to - provide the Space and equipment common to the traditional butcher ShOp. Within the pages of current journals and texts it is difficult to find convenient criteria for estab- lishing butcher ShOp perimeters. Therefore, total space estimates for this department were based upon the quantity and size of work center equipment, allowances for Sinks and work tables and allowances for adequate work and traffic aisles. The literature was researched for the dimensions of the needed machinery and support elements and aisles. Once all calculations had been made it was apparent that a mini- mum area of 300 square feet must be allocated to meat processing. 4. Vegetablepand salad preparation. 'As with the meat preparation area, the space allocation in relation to vegetable and salad preparation was determined by internal department analysis. The total area was arbitrarily viewed' as having three distinct components: a peeling center, a cleaning and trimming center and a cutting, shredding, chopping and salad assembly center. The performance and workload within each center was carefully reviewed to guide the decisions related to equipment demands, work surfaces, sinks and aisle allowances. An area of 300 square feet , 26 minimum was the estimated requirement to house the vegetable and salad preparation function. 5. Main cooking. Within this segment of the redesigning process it was only possible to allocate the area of twenty-one feet in depth to accommodate the main cooking battery. The estimate of the battery length was deferred until a menu analysis had been completed. The calculated depth of twenty—one feet is illustrated in the following diagram: . 7" working space 2% ft aisle 4 ft equipment 3 ft cleaning Space 2 ft 21 feet equipment 3 ft aisle 4 ft working Space 2% ft m Detailed planning of the main cooking area was carried out in conjunction with the data made available from the menu analysis. 27 6. Bakeshop. The bakeshop total space allocation of five hundred and twenty-five square feet was obtained from a menu analysis for equipment needs detailed in sub- sequent discussions. 7. Potwashinq. The space required for the potwash- ing Operation depends upon the method used and equipment needed and is, therefore, subject to wide variation between different food service facilities. For the facility under review, potwashing is a manual rather than a mechanized process. Frolich (7) recommends that approximately three— tenths of a square foot per person fed be allowed for this unit. Kotschevar and Terrell (9) relate space requirements to volume of soiled pots, size of triple Sink drainboard, allowance for soiled and clean pot storage and adequacy of worker aisle. Dana (4) calculates the potwashing area in a manner similar to Kotschevar and Terrell. Aided by the published guidelines an area of three hundred square feet was reserved for the potwashing function. 8. Employee facilities. The allowance for employee facilities is given as eight square feet per employee (7). This space includes area for lockers, showers, toilets and restrooms. With an employee population of forty-nine, the total area required for employee use was calculated to be three hundred and ninety-two square feet. 28 Menu analysis for equipment needs Menu preparation for the military installation follows a master menu pattern (Figure 1). The meals pro- vided vary from a light lunch to a heavy meal, according to the desire of the diner. The military facility under study uses a Six week cycle menu which details all items to be prepared and served at breakfast, lunch and dinner, Monday to Sunday for the six week period. For purposes of the menu analysis, random selection of several complete daily menus was encouraged and during the preliminary planning stages these selected menus were systematically studied. However, since the procedures for the determination of equipment requirements are identical for each menu, the intent here is to illustrate the process using one sample menu (Figure 2). The initial step in the procedure was to list each product on the menu and the anticipated number of servings. Then a column listing of each piece of equipment required for the production of the item was compiled. The amount of time required for the use of the equipment and the time of day for usage were then determined. The final step was to calculate the quantity of each piece of equipment required, relative to the volume of production. This data was orga- nized in chart format (Figures 3, 4 and 5) for ease of reference. .A final overall consolidation of total depart- ment equipment requirements, to meet the maximum demand at “any one time, was then compiled (Figures 6, 7 and 8). 29 A. BREAKFAST Choice of fruit or fruit and vegetable juices Choice of cooked and dry cereals Choice of breakfast egg dishes Hot cakes Bacon or ham or sausage Toast, butter, jams etc. Beverages--milk, tea or coffee B. LUNCH AND pINNER MEALS ChOice of soup or appetizer Choice of two freshly prepared meat or fish dishes One casserole type or egg dish Choice of two potatoes Choice of two other vegetables Salad table Choice of at least three desserts Bread, butter, jam, cheese etc. Beverages--milk, tea or coffee Figure l. The master menu pattern. 30 BREAKFAST % grapefruit Cream of wheat; assorted dry cereals Poached, fried or scrambled eggs Soft or hard cooked eggs Grilled back bacon French toast with maple syrup Apricot muffins Toast, butter, jams Beverages LUNCH Pepper pot soup Virginia baked ham with orange and raisin sauce Hamburger deluxe Chili con carne Au gratin or baked potato Boiled Shredded cabbage Vegetable macedoine Garden green salad Potato salad Chefs salad Assorted meat trays Apple pie Lime jello with tOppit Chilled plums, caraway cookies DINNER Split pea soup Baked salmon loaf with egg sauce French meat pie with brown gravy Veal chOp suey on steamed rice Parslied boiled or roast potato Buttered carrot pennies Frozen green beans Club salad Combination salad Potato salad .Assorted cheese tray, assorted crackers Assorted meat tray Raspberry jelly roll Queens pudding with light custard sauce Chilled fruit cocktail, cocoanut cookies Beverages Figure 2. A sample daily menu. 31 - Number of Time of Day Duration Estimate of Total Product Servings Equipment Needed Required Required Equipment Needs cream of wheat 100 range/stm kettle l range/stm kettle or or counter kettle 6:40-7:00 20 mins 1 counter kettle sink 1 sink work table 1 work table assorted 700 refrigerator staggered l refrigerator egg dishes range 1 range griddle 6:30-8:00 1% hrs 1—2 griddles steam kettle l steam kettle work table 1 work table grilled bacon 700 refrigerator staggered l refrigerator griddle 6:30—8:00 18 hrs 1-2 griddles work table 1 work table French toast 300 refrigerator staggered 1 refrigerator mixer l mixer griddle 6:30—8:00 1% hrs 1 griddle work table 1 work table pepper pot 500 work table 30 mins 1 work table soup 8 oz srvgs refrigerator briefly 1 refrigerator (30 gals) sink 10:00—11:30 briefly 1 sink veg chopper 4-5 mins 1 veg chopprr steam kettle 1 hr 15 1 steam kettle Virginia ham 300 work table 15 mins 1 work table (110 lbs) 6 oz srvgs roast oven 6:30—12:30 6 hrs 2 ovens 10 hams/15 lbs sink briefly access orange-raisin 150 sink access sauce 2 oz srvgs work table 11:00-11:20 20 mins 1 work table (2% gals) counter kettle 1 counter kettle grilled beef 1,000 refrigerator access patties 3 oz srvgs work table 1 work table (250 lbs) mixer 11:00-1:00 2 hrs 1 mixer grill 2 griddles thermotainer Chili con 200 refrigerator briefly access carne 6 oz srvgs work table 8:00—8:30 30 mins 1 work table (10 gals) steam kettle 3 hrs 1 steam kettle Au gratin 500 work table 1 work table potato 5 oz srvgs A steamer 10:30-10:45 15 mins 1 steamer steam kettle 10:30-11:00 30 mins 1 counter kettle oven 11:00-11:30 30 mins 1 oven baked potato 500 work table 10:15—10:30 15 mins 1 work table oven 10:30-11:30 1 hr 1 oven shredded 400 cutting board staggered 1 work table cabbage 3 oz srvgs steam kettle 11:15-1:00 2 hrs 45 1 steam kettle vegetable 600 work table Staggered 1 work table macedoine 3 oz srvgs steam kettle ll:15-1:OO 2 hrs 45 1 Steam kettle Figure 3. Cook's battery: equipment required to process menu. 32 Number of Time of Day Duration Estnmate of Total Product Servings Equipment Needed Required Required Equipment Needs split pea soup 500 refrigerator access 1 refrigerator (30 gals) 8 oz srvgs work table 2:45-3:00 15 mins 1 work table steam kettle 3:00-4z30 1 hr 30 1 steam kettle salmon loaf 450 can opener access 1 can Opener (12 gals) 6 oz srvgs refrigerator access 1 refrigerator mixer 3:00-3:15 15 mins 1 mixer work table 3:15-3:30 15 mins 1 work table oven 3:30-4:30 1 hr 1 oven egg sauce refrigerator access 1 refrigerator (2 gals) work table 4:00-4:10 10 mins 1 work table kettle 4:10-4:30 20 mins 1 counter kettle meat pies 450 refrigerator access (112 lbs-- 6 oz srvgs work table 2:50-3:10 20 mins 1 work table 15 gals) mixer 3:10-3:30 20 mins 1 mixer steam kettle 3:30-4:10 40 mins 1 steam kettle oven 4:10-4:30 20 mins 1 oven brown gravy refrigerator access (3 gals) work table 3:50-4:00 10 mins 1 work table counter kettle 4:00-4:20 20 mins 1 counter kettle veal chop 100 refrigerator access 1 refrigerator suey 6 oz srvgs work table 2:00-2:30 30 mins 1 work table (10 gals) sink access 1 sink steam kettle 3:00-4:3O 1 hr 30 1 steam kettle steamed rice 100 sink access 1 sink steam kettle 4:10-4:30 20 mins 1 steam kettle boiled potato 400 work table staggered 1 work table 5 oz srvgs steam kettle 4:10-5:40 1 hr 30 l steam kettle roast potato 600 work table 3:15-3:30 15 mins 1 work table 5 oz srvgs oven 3:30-4:30 1 hr 1 oven carrot pennies 500 work table staggered 1 work table 3 oz srvgs steam kettle 4:15-5:40 1 hr 25 l steam kettle frozen green 500 staggered beans 3 oz srvgs (counter kettle 4:15-5:40 1 hr 25 1 counter kettle Figure 3“9_°_n_t_iflll_e_d_ 33 Number of .‘ Time Of Day Duration Estimate of Total Product Servings Equipment Needed Required Required Equipment Needs muffins 20 doz refrigerator briefly l refrigerator work table 5:00-6:30 1 hr 30 1 work table mixer 5:15-5:30 15 mins 1 food mixer bake oven 5:30-6:30 1 hr 1 oven apple pie - 1000 srvgs scales (4 hrs) briefly l scales (pastry and work table 8:00-9:30 1 hr 30 1 work table filling) mixer 8:30-9:30 1 hr 1 food mixer steam kettle 8:30-9:00 30 mins 1 steam kettle oven 10:30-11:30 1 hr 1 oven cooling rack 11:15-11:30 15 mins 1 cooking rack lime jello 500 srvgs sink briefly 1 sink with tOppit mixer 5 mins day 2 mixers work table 15 mins previous 1 work table mixer 10 mins chilled plums 300 srvgs can opener 9:20-9:30 10 mins 1 can Opener work table 1 work table refrigerator 2 hrs 1 refrigerator caraway cookies serve with scales briefly l scales (90 doz) jello and mixer 8:00-8:30 30 mins 1 mixer fruit work table 8:30-9:30 1 hr 1 work table oven 9:30-10:30 1 hr 1 oven cooling rack 10:30-11:30 1 hr 1 cooking rack raSpberry 600 srvgs scales 12:00-12:15 15 mins 1 scale jello roll (16“x26" sink briefly 1 sink (25 rolls) pans) mixer 12:15—12:30 15 mins 1 work table work table 12:30-12:45 15 mins 1 work table oven 12:45-2:30 1 hr 45 1 oven cooling rack 2:30-3:00 30 min 1 cooling rack work table 3:45-4:10 25 min 1 work table refrigerator queens pudding 500500 refrigerator briefly l refrigerator (15 gals) 5 oz srvgs scales 1:30-1:45 15 mins 1 scales mixer 1:45-2:00 15 mins 1 mixer work table 2:00-2:30 30 mins 1 work table oven 2:30-4:00 30 mins 1 oven cooling rack 4:00-4:30 30 mins 1 cooling rack custard sauce refrigerator briefly 1 refrigerator (4-5 gals) 1 oz erg scales 3:00-3:05 5 mins 1 scales mixer 3:05-3:15 10 mins 1 mixer counter kettle 3:15-3:35 20 mins 1 counter kettle work table 3:00-4:00 1 hr 1 work table chilled 300 can opener 1 can opener fruit cocktail work table 3:20-3:30 10 mins 1 work table refrigerator 2 hrs 1 refrigerator cocoanut 90 doz refrigerator briefly 1 refrigerator cookies scales 11:00-11:10 10 mins 1 scales mixer 11:10-11:25 15 mins 1 mixer work table 11:00-12:45 1 hr 45 1 work table oven 11:30-12:45 1 hr 15 1 oven cooling rack 12:45-1:15 30 mins 1 cooling rack Figure 4. Bakeshop: equipment required to process menu. 34 .scoe mmmooum Op poufldoon usoEQHsoO "coflumnmmonm pmamm .m ousmflm manna MHO3 a an H Omuwlomum mans» xwo3 manmwnm> mmuu wmmono Houmuomfiummu a HOumHomHHmow pouHOmmm Hmoaam name A Hooaam umoe magma rho; H us a omueromnm were» sues mes melee same name Houmummeumou A Houmuomwnmou pouHOmmm HOumuomHHmou H Houmuomfinmon mans» xuo3 a manna xuo3 mxcem OHQSOO mu: N omumlomua mxsam pmamm Hoaomm mo> a Hoaoom mo> mamm mN oumuom mans» MHOB H manmu xuos mxcam mansop an: N ooumlooua mstm . pmamm HOumummeumou H HOumuomfiumou mama mN coHumsHQEOo HOumHOONHmow a noumuoomwwou mMst xsam mauuox Emoum H mm: N omuNIomnNH mauuox Emoum manna xno3 a magma xwo3 mamm ma pmamm QSHO mans» xHOB a manmu MHO3 mmuu EOHHOH Hooflam umoa H H: a omuaaromuoa Hoowam ummE mmuu umoE HOumuomNHmou H Houmummeumou OHQmNHm> pouHOmmm Hepmnomwumou H Houmummeumou manmu EH03 H mm: N oonaarooum wanna xuoz mxcam mansop mxsam mamm mN pmamm muono manmu Muo3 H manna xuoz nxcwm mansop mu: N oouoalooum mxsflm pmamm Hoamom mm> a umamom mo> mamm mN Oumuom HOumHomNHmou H HOumuomNHmou magma sues A an: m omuaauomum «Hemp xuo3 enema :mmum mstm OHQOOO mstm mamm mN cwpwmm mpooz ucoEmNsom pouesoom pmuesomm popooz mmsH>Hmm unapoum Hmuoa mo mumeumm coHumnsn man no OENB usoamflsom mo Honasz 35 Item Quantity Size Refrigerator 2 48" x 29" Work Tables 6 30" wide; 4,6,8 ft long Upright Steamer l 21%" x 29%" x 32" Steam Kettles 2 30 gals Steam Kettles 2 40 gals Steam Kettles 2 Counter Kettles Food Mixers 2 l--60 quart stationary 1--20 quart portable Ovens, Deck, Roasting 3 54-3/8" x 36" Range 1 36" x 38" Griddles 3 1--6 ft x 3 ft 2--36" x 38" Fry Kettles 3 20-1/8" x 36-1/8" Meat Slicer 21" x 26" x 34" Sinks 2 Variable Figure 6. Cook's battery: consolidated equipment needs. 36 Equipment Needed Quantity Size Oven--Deck, Baking l 54" x 38" Food Mixer and l 60 quart--stationary Attachments 1 20 quart--portable Steam Kettle (Tilting) 1 20 gals Steam Kettle (Counter) 1 5-6 gals Work Tables 3 6 ft x 2% ft Scales--Large, Mobile 1 2 ft x 2% ft Scales--Small, Counter 1 1 ft x 1 ft Sink--Sing1e Compartment 1 2 ft x 2% ft Cooling Racks--Mobile 2 5% ft x 2% ft Proofing Cabinet 1 2% ft x 2% ft Fry Kettles 2 Bskt 20" x 36" Refrigerator 1 48" x 29" Figure 7. Bakeshop consolidated equipment needs. 37 Equipment Required Quantity Size Work Tables 3—4 8 ft x 2% ft Vegetable Peeler l 2 ft x 2 ft Meat Slicer--Mobile l 2% ft x 2% ft Counter Steam Kettle 1-2 5 gals Food Mixer and Attachments 1 20 qt portable Double Sinks and Drainboards 2 8 ft x 2 ft Refrigerator 1 Walk-In and Pass Through Figure 8. Salad preparation: consolidated equipment needs. 38 The individual equipment size was also influenced by maximum demand upon the item. In the majority of instances, equip- ment size compares favorably with that equipment in place within the existing facility. Development of the flow pattern To plot the location of the various areas within the kitchen, cut—outs representing each total space allocation were manipulated to ascertain the most efficient production flow. The various departments were arranged such that work and materials moved in a reasonably straight, direct line. The goal was to minimize manpower and material movement and to maximize Operational efficiency. Bulk storage has been placed in close proximity to the receiving dock, yet is directly accessible to food prep- aration areas so that deliveries can be made quickly when required. Refrigeration and low temperature storage, co— ordinated as a bank of installations, have been assigned an area close to the preparation departments they support. The meat processing area and vegetable pre-prepara- tion have been placed adjacent to the main cooking battery; the salad preparation area occupies a Space convenient to each of the dining rooms. The main cooking department has been logically situated within a Short distance of each of the serving 39 lines. The bakeshop and potwashing area have been assigned floor space on a route convenient to the functions each supports. DeveIOpment of the renovated layout Once the production flow pattern was established and the area locations firmly resolved, action then proceeded toward development of the renovated facility. Equipment templates were designed to scale, in the size and quantity determined from the menu analysis. Work centers were planned in harmony with the principles Of good flow and motion economy. Mobility characterized by portable equip- ment was highlighted within performance centers. The pre- liminary planning guide was reviewed frequently to ensure that important factors and features had not been overlooked. One by one the preparation departments were constructed until eventually the total remodelling task was completed (Plate 2). The completed plan was remarkably different in character to the former plan. In Chapter Three both the original plan and the proposed arrangement are discussed to bring to light the resulting outstanding differences. CHAPTER III A CRITIQUE OF THE TWO LAYOUTS The Original Layout (Plate 1) The receiving dock, upper extremity in the layout, is constructed to encompass two entrances and is accessible to the building interior by way of two.main corridors. Foodstuffs received are inspected and checked then routed to the various refrigeration and storage areas at points within the kitchen and/or back of the house. The adminis- trators office is located some distance from the entrance making it necessary for him to re-position himself at the entrance during delivery proceedings. The same Office must be shared by the shift supervisor since additional office space is not identified on the plan. This office is suit- ably located for the shift supervisor to oversee the prep- aration and serving line activities but critically limits the supervision of the important and costly function of receiving. The butcher shop, meat refrigerator, dry garbage storage, garbage refrigerator, vegetable preparation and vegetable refrigerator are congregated in locations adjacent to the two main corridors leading from the receiving dock. 4O 41 A linen room, a bread room, the dairy refrigerator and bulk stores are given a mid-kitchen site bordering the main prep- aration area, but their doors open into the incoming passage- way. They are more readily accessible from the receiving dock than to the main cooking area. This is an awkward arrangement since the movement from receiving to storage might occur once in a day but the movement patterns between these areas and the preparation areas could occur several times each Shift. Surplus bulk storage is accommodated on the basement level, routed down the stairs which appear to the left of the meat refrigerator. Such movements must be manually completed since there is no evidence of an elevator or conveyor belt facility in the plan. The scullery occupies a prime site, centrally located in the kitchen immediately bordering the cook's battery which it strenuously supports. All departments within the original layout are surrounded by walls, either floor to ceiling as with the meat processing department, or by a partial wall similar to that isolating the scullery. To be aware of conditions and activities within any one department the supervisor must find his way to the area and step inside its boundaries. Workers, on the move between departments, are forced to dodge walls and frequently take a zig-zag avenue to make contact with an area. Because each preparation area is 42 isolated by the walls it becomes an impractical feat to share equipment, to communicate and to maintain a direct, unrestricted production flow. To comprehend a very few of the difficulties within the original layout, it may be advisable to look more closely at one or two activities occurring in this facility. Foodstuffs delivered to the receiving dock are loaded onto hand trucks and routed to appropriate areas within the kitchen. All meat items would be delivered to the butcher- shOp, and placed under refrigeration. Fresh vegetables and fruits would be delivered to the vegetable preparation area and placed under refrigeration. However, it is unknown which door would be used to gain access to the building. It appears that regardless of which entrance is selected, one of the departments is directly attainable, while access to the second department is on a route cutting through the dry garbage area. Failure to acknowledge the short cut through the garbage area gives rise to a lengthy movement down one main corridor, around the cook's refrigerator and zero room, then up the second main corridor to the depart- ment in question. Perhaps, on the other hand, both doors are used; one to gain access to the meat refrigerator, dairy refrigerator and dry storage, the second to gain access to the vegetable refrigerator and zero room. If such is the case, either commodities are separated on the dock or the 43 delivery truck and personnel shift positions to make use of the two doors and delivery routes. Frozen foods would travel from receiving dock to the zero room. It is necessary to enter the cook's refrigerator to reach the zero room. Canned goods, flour, sugars, Spices, cereals, pickles and the many other items destined for dry storage are transported the length of a main corridor from the receiving dock to the Storeroom on the kitchen level or carried to basement storage. Personnel from the main prep- aration, the bakeshOp and the vegetable preparation area journey to the storeroom to acquire needed supplies. The meat, once delivered to the butcher shOp, is thereafter handled by the butcher until utilized in the main cooking domain. The butcher walks to the meat refrigerator, removes the carcass for processing and returns to his work center. Throughout the day he may make numerous trips between the work center and refrigerator, storing cuts or removing other specific meat demands. At the same time a cook from the main preparation area may be in the butcher shop to load a cart with the meat cuts to be used for the meal. Both the butcher and the cook could make several trips between the heart of the refrigerator and the cart or work center, hand carrying the meat. The high refrigerator door ledges preclude the pushing of carts into the refriger— ator. From the layout of the kitchen it appears that the relationship of the main cooking area and the butcher ShOp 44 is costly in terms of time and labour dollar expenditure on non-productive hours. Someone, either the butcher or the cook, is walking the distance between the two departments to make the necessary contact. The relationship is so distant that a large percentage of the time involved is contributed more to walking and a very small percentage recorded as productive effort. Vegetables that are trimmed and cleaned within the vegetable preparation room are transported to the cook's battery where the steam kettles, steamer, ovens and fryers are located. Potatoes, cabbage, carrots and other numerous fresh vegetables travel the extensive distance between the two areas either on carts or hand carried. .Salads, also originating from the vegetable preparation area must be distributed to buffet tables Situated in each of the dining rooms. Salads are held in and replenished from the vegeta- ble refrigerator since there is no contact refrigeration situated near the buffet tables. Workers expend consider- able time and walk extensive distances both in setting up the buffet tables and in replenishing salads throughout the meal period. The basic incoming flow and distance relationship chart (Figure 9) gives some indication of the problems inherent in this Operation. It is apparent that two quite active departments, the butcher ShOp and the vegetable and salad preparation, are not ideally located in relation to 45 Receiving Receiving Butcher Veg/Salad Shop \ Prep ,> . Meat Veg . . Zero Cooks . Stairs Refrig Room Refrig *Refrig