MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF HOME ECOI-IOIVIICS
EAST LANSING, MICHIGAN

ABSTRACT
THE APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING

PRINCIPLES TO THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT
' OF A FOOD SERVICE FACILITY

BY

Sister Josita Prokosch

Integrated systems of men, materials and equipment
are fundamental to the nature of industrial activity. Food
service facility planning has incorporated industrial engi—
neering concepts, yet the principles involved are not always
evident in the interpretations and applications.

On the assumption that food service is a composite
of diversified processes and activities, it is suggested
that a clarification of industrial engineering principles of
design and layout will be an effective aid in analysis and
decision making for food service facility planning in an era
of advancing technology.

Relative to design, Richard Muther suggests four
guiding fundamentals; (1) plan the ideal and from it the
practical, (2) plan the process and the equipment around the
product requirements, (3) plan the layout around the process
and (4) plan for the satisfaction and safety of the workers.

The IDEALS system concept developed by Gerald Nadler

is a design strategy incorporating these principles. The

Sister Josita Prokosch

ideal system concept uses as a guide the ideal and best in
developing a recommended system in contrast to the conven-
tional attempt to use present and past models as bases for
design decisions. Restrictions and constraints on the ideal
are defined in terms of function, output, input, process and
environment.

The basic objectives or principles in plant layout
are: (1) integration of all facets of the facility, (2)
reduction of material movement to a minimum, (3) arrangement
of effective work flow, (4) effective utilization of space
and (5) flexibility in the arrangement.

A specific design and layout is examined in the
light of the concepts discussed. A rationale for the layout

is presented.

THE APPLICATION OF INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING
PRINCIPLES TO THE DESIGN AND LAYOUT

OF A FOOD SERVICE FACILITY

BY

Sister Josita Prokosch

A PROBLEM

Submitted to the
Dean of the College of Home Economics
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

1969

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer is grateful to Professor Katherine Hart
for her direction of this problem, to Professor Gladys
Knight for her time and guidance in preparing the proposed
floor plan, to Dr. Grace Miller for her advice in the pre-
liminary planning of the problem and to the religious and
college community of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, Minnesota,

for the opportunity of graduate study.

*****

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES . . . . . . . . . . 4
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

IDEALS concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Design elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Layout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ll
Principle of overall integration . . . . . 12

Principle of minimum distance . . . . . . 12

Principle of flow . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Principle of space utilization . . . . . . 14

Principle of flexibility . . . . . . . . . 14

A SPECIFIC PROPOSAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Output . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Layout Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

iii

Exhibit

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Page
Levels of IDEALS systems . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Relationship chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
.Flow diagram showing functional relation-
ships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Proposed layout of food service area
(pocket inside back cover)

iv

INTRODUCTION

A cursory review of food service literature reveals
an abundance of checklists, formulas, rules of thumb and
procedures for logical calculations purported to aid in
planning efficient kitchen layouts. However, layouts coming
off drawing boards frequently are outdated, inefficient and
ineffective. These shortcomings may well relate less to the
actual arrangement of equipment within a given setting than
to the preliminary planning and decisions that precede the
detailed layout.

Concepts of design and layout are commonly used
interchangeably to mean the designation of space and the
arrangement of equipment for a particular function. Moore,
an industrial engineer, underscores a significant distinc—
tion in these two concepts (12). He defines plant design as
the panoramic view, the broad functions which include the
overall plan of the enterprise. Design incorporates the
decisions about men, machines, and materials that must
precede layout considerations. .Plant layout is a limited
function, the plan of an Optimum arrangement of a facility
in accord with the preliminary design decisions. Layout is

the arrangement of men, machines and materials.

The role of industrial engineering is clarified by
Sizelove (21). He speaks of integrated systems Of men,
materials and equipment as fundamental to the nature of
industrial activity. The design and installation of these
systems are the concern of industrial engineering. The
design of the systems becomes the basis of managerial deci-
sions for the effective conduct of the enterprise.

,Food service facility planning has relied on indus—
trial engineering concepts. Yet the principles involved are
not always evident in the interpretations and applications.
A clarification of these principles may improve food service
facility planning and aid in the appraisal of opportunities
provided by technological advances.

The following assumptions aid in establishing the
appropriate application of industrial engineering principles
to the design and layout of food service Operations:

1. Food service is a composite of diversified
processes and activities which requires Optimum analysis and
planning in the design and layout of facilities.

2. Production and service are components of a whole;
effective total operation calls for their integration.

3. Though it is theoretically accepted that menu
pattern is the central determining factor for layout engi-
neering, it is a system within itself and as such should be
viewed and approached in its elemental components of input,

output and process.

4. _A food service Operation is a complex system
utilizing men, materials and equipment as chief resource
components which are an essential and integral part of the
design and layout.

5. An intimate relationship exists between the
planning of a food service unit and the organization of the
work to be done in the facility after construction. Optimum
realization of this relationship demands that management
make the necessary decisions to make available the kind of
information needed by the architect and that the architect
reiterate the design to management upon completion of the
layout.

This paper will identify industrial engineering
principles applicable to design and layout of food service
facilities, illustrate the application of the principles
selected by reviewing the design for a food production and
service unit for the College of St. Benedict student activ-
ity center and formulate a rationale for a proposed layout
with the intent of providing a decision-making tool for the

administrators, consultants and architects for the College.

INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERING PRINCIPLES

The writings of Richard Muther (13, 14) enumerate
principles which guide industrial engineers in plant layout
planning. Several of these principles apply most aptly to
the design of the Operation while others pertain directly to

layout.
Design

Relative to design, Muther (l3, 14) suggests four
guiding fundamentals: (1) plan the ideal and from it the
practical, (2) plan the process and the equipment around the
product requirements, (3) plan the layout around the process
and (4) provide for the satisfaction and safety of workers.
The IDEALS system concept developed by Nadler (18) is a
design strategy incorporating these principles. In addi-
tion it is a system approach which gives cognizance to the
reality of interactions and provides a framework wherein
decisions relating to any element or component are seen as
significantly affecting the whole (20). It provides a
graphic model which will substitute for mental containment
which is difficult or impossible with the diverse and numer-
ous elements and relationships characteristic of complex

enterprises (21). Finally, it is a design model which

suggests an ongoing evolutionary character to cope with

continual technological develOpments.

IDEALS concept

IDEALS is an acronym for "ideal design for effective
and logical systems". The IDEALS concept involves the sys-
tematic investigation of contemplated and present work sys-
tems with the intent of formulating the easiest and most
effective system for achieving necessary functions. ‘Work
system refers to the arrangement of resources required to
achieve a purpose. Effectiveness adds a qualifying element
to that of efficiency in the accomplishment of a result.
Necessity of function may appear to state the obvious, yet
systems are designed where no required function other than
"this is the way we've always done it" exists.

The reasons for planning and designing systems are
to increase productivity and to develop manpower effective-
ness. Increased productivity shows in increased profits
and/or decreased costs. Manpower effectiveness involves a
less routine organizational Objective, that of enhancing
human dignity and encouraging advancement toward the limits
Of ability. It is this Objective that appears to be Of
special significance in the food service industry faced with
decisions to introduce or to reject technological nuances.

The ideal system concept uses as a guide the ideal
and best in developing a recommended system. This approach

is in contrast to the conventional attempt to use present

and past models as bases for design decisions. Nadler (18)
has developed a triangular figure to illustrate this concept
(Exhibit 1). The distance between the sides of the triangle
represent total cost (or time or energy), per unit of output
at each system level. The apex represents the theoretical
ideal system, a system which involves no cost, no time, no
energy per unit for an infinite amount of output. It is
thus equivalent to the concept of infinity in mathematics.
This level is defined in order to provide limitlessness for
thought processes in designing the system. It is an ideal
intended to be increasingly approached without ever being
absolutely reached. -An ultimate ideal system is a long-
range design needing research and development to make it
feasible. Technologically workable ideal systems may be
several in number, utilize already available knowledge and
components, and could be installed if there were no real
life restrictions. One technologically workable system is
selected as the target and guide in developing the recom-
mended solution.

-Avery (3) applies the ideal system to food service
Operations. He suggests that only when yesterday's systems,
facilities and equipment are abandoned when designing for
the future will the challenge of a dynamic society be met.
He poses instantaneous food production at no cost or effort
as the theoretically ideal system. Completely automated

food services represent the ultimate ideal. The

<——-Theoretical ideal system

   
   
 

 

Ultimate ideal system

Technologically workable
ideal system

 

Conventional approach or

 

‘

present system

EXHIBIT 1. Levels of IDEALS systems.a

 

aGerald Nadler, Work Systems Design: The IDEALS
Concept (Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc.,
1967), Figure 3-1, p. 26.

technologically workable ideal system may incorporate a high
degree of automation, mechanization and computer control.
.Another application of the IDEALS system model lies
in its making visual the distribution of costs in the
various resource components within the system. The major
resource components are men, materials and machines. Recall
that the theoretically ideal system is instantaneous, infi—
nite production with no cost for manpower, materials or
equipment. With this theoretically ideal concept in mind
questions can be raised and alternatives weighed: will a
ready-to-serve item be purchased for automatic vending, a
ready-to-serve item be purchased and served, a partially
prepared item purchased, assembled and/or processed and
served, raw materials purchased, processed and served. .Each
of the above involve a different mix of the three major com-
ponents. Each of the resource components is interdependent
upon every other. .An effective system Optimizes the various
components with the ideal system suggestions and with the
definition and/or recognition of restrictions and con—
straints. These restrictions and constraints are estab-
lished and/or imposed by functions, output needs, input
specifications and availability, process decisions and
environment desired. These design elements characterize the

second phase of systems design.

Design elements

It is not feasible to apply a universal design which
will serve all needs, nor to plan for every eventuality.

The necessary restrictions and constraints may be imposed or
formulated according to five elements of the IDEALS design
strategy (18). The series of decisions involving these
elements constitute the preliminary planning or design of an
enterprise.

The first of these elements is function. Function
is the mission, aim, or primary concern of a system. Func-
tion is used as distinct from goal which Nadler defines as
the desired state within which the achievement of the pur-
pose is to take place. The irreducible, minimum function in
terms of results desired for a college food service might be
to satisfy the daily physical, psychological and social food
needs of the students, faculty, staff and guests.

The second element or step is to describe how the
function is to be accomplished; that is to specify the out-
put desired. In food service the menu pattern formulates a
major part of the output specifications. It includes prod-
uct design and product mix. Establishing the quantity
required, quality desired and service to be provided com-
plete the output specifications. The budgetary and finan—
cial framework within which this is to be accomplished is

the goal of the enterprise.

10

The input to the process refers to any physical
items, information or feedback which enter into processing
to arrive at the desired output. It is the defining Of the
input which has received the least amount of consideration
in food service layout planning. This may be due to the
relatively few alternatives of input available prior to the
1960's. With the industry now in the midst of advancing
technological achievements it is mandatory that decisions
about input precede the completion of the design and the
initiation of the layout. The prime question may be, "to
what extent can pre-processed or partially prepared foods
be utilized to achieve the function with Optimal satisfac-
tion of output specifications".

The state of preparedness Of the input determines in
large part the fourth element, process. Process includes
not only the sequence of Operations necessary but also the
equipment and human agents required to change the input to
output.

The final element, one gaining in significance, is
environment. .In Nadler's scheme environment includes socio-
logical, psychological as well as the physical climate with-
in which the process occurs to accomplish the function. ~A
basic consideration for food service that has ramifications
in the physical, sociological and psychological aspects Of
working conditions lies in conceiving the wholeness or

integralness of production and service.

11

These restrictions and constraints when adequately
defined form an essential part of the final specifications

and interpretation of a system.
Layout

Plant layout refers to the Optimum arrangement of a
facility in accord with preliminary design decisions. It is
the arrangement of men, equipment and materials (12). Lay-
out includes the space needed for operating equipment and
personnel, for material movement and storage and all other
supporting activities and services (14).

Historically, the earliest principles called for
grouping similar machines and processes together, for pro—
viding adequate room around each machine, for lining up work
areas in orderly rows, specifying aisle-ways and keeping
them clean, and for bringing material in at one end and
moving it in one direction toward the other end Of the
plant (14). In retrospect it is obvious that these prin-
ciples were incomplete and not wholly valid. It is from
these few details, however, that concepts of effective lay-
out are still evolving.

The basic objectives or principles in plant layout
are: (1) integration of all facets of the facility, (2)
reduction of material movement to a minimum, (3) arrangement
Of effective work flow, (4) effective utilization of space,

and (5) flexibility in the arrangement (l3, l4).

12

Principle of overall integration

The achievement of one overall working unit is a
desirable aim in layout. Integration of all facets of an
Operation assumes that relationships are considered and/or
established. It is suggested that the importance of rela-
tive closeness required or desired between each pair of
activities be rated and supported with reasons (l5, 16).

See Exhibit 2.

Principle of minimum distance

Movement as such adds to the cost of the product
without adding to the value of a product. If materials in
production are moved minimum distances production time is
shortened, employee effort and fatigue are decreased, labor
costs are lowered and supervision is simplified (7).

Transportation between Operations can be minimized
by placing subsequent operations adjacent to previous ones
and by having pick-up for one Operation coincide with dis-

charge from the previous operation.

Principle of flow

The concept of flow is one of constant progress
toward completion with a minimum of backtracking, interrup-
tion, interference or congestion. This is not necessarily
a straight line or single direction. .Zigzag or circular
flows may be effective (14). Muther suggests that in
arranging flow lines, it is usually effective to work

backward from the end point.

 

 

O haEEy/J
'—.I
u»

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Receiving
This block shows relation
2. Dry stores between "1" and "3"
I
6M2
3. R f ' t'
e rigera 10H ’ 9V”;
l“!.,‘,‘ X
4. .Main preparation M
AWU
l 2
OWAUU
6. C01d fOOd preparation IVXVU" 3.4
. IABA M23v4
7. Pan washing
3 M4
. . U
9. Dishwashing A5 0 I4 Importance Of

 

relationship (top)

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 A: Reasons in code (below)
10. Serving
A34
$4
11. Supervisory Office
Value Closeness Code Reason
A Absolutely necessary 1 Use same equipment
E Especially necessary 2 Flow of materials
I Important 3 Supervision
0 Ordinary closeness 4 Flow of information
U Unimportant 5 Flow of soiled dishes/pans
X Undesirable 6 Same receiving dock
7 Convenience
8 Noise
9 Flow of clean dishes

EXHIBIT 2. Relationship chart.

l4

Principle of space utilization

Layout is basically the arrangement of space or
"spaces" occupied by men, materials, equipment and support-
ing services. Space has both vertical and horizontal dimen-
sions. .Effective layout utilizes cubic space as well as
floor area. TOO little space and too much space are liabil-
ities felt in the initial investment and in the daily Opera-

tion of the facility.

Principle of flexibility

In a climate of varying needs, increasing demands
and changing Operational constraints and restrictions,
flexibility is one characteristic that can strengthen the
OOping power of an Operation. Provision for adjustment and

rearrangement wherever possible will be an asset to an enter-

prise.

IA SPECIFIC PROPOSAL

Having outlined the principles deemed applicable to
food service, a design and general layout will be examined
in the light of the concepts discussed.

The plan under consideration is a food service unit
which is one section of a layout for a total student activ-

ity center for a college.
Design

The design of an Operation includes a statement of
function and the basic decisions that will guide layout con-
siderations. The format of this review is the elements of

Nadler's design strategy.

Function

The primary aim of this system will be the satisfac-
tion of the physical, psychological and social food needs of
the college community and guests insofar as this is possible

and feasible.

Output

The accomplishment of this function will vary in
accord with specific situations and groups within the com-

munity. The most regularly occurring need for the largest

15

16

group represented will be three daily meals for approx-
imately one thousand students.

It is assumed from experience and Observation that
students' daily food needs can be effectively satisfied by
high quality food served attractively with some selection
and with minimum or no waiting time for service.

As an initial specification Of output, in terms of

product, the following menu pattern is suggested.

Menu Pattern

 

 

 

Food Item Number of Choices
Juice 1
Fruit 1
Entree' l
. .Quick bread 1
Breakfast. Toast 2
Cereal Assorted
Accompaniments Assorted
Beverage 4-6
Appetizer 1
Entree' 2
Salad 2-3
Dessert 3
LEEEE’ Bread 2-3
Accompaniments (Assorted
Condiments 'Assorted
Beverage 4-6
Appetizer 1
Entree' 2
Vegetable 2
Potato or substitute 1
- Salad 2-3
ELEEEE’ Dessert 3
Bread 2-3
Accompaniments Assorted
Condiments Assorted

Beverage 4-6

17

In addition to product output, demands in terms of
service must also be met. It is estimated that service and
dining area capacity should be of such size and arrangement
as to accommodate 75 to 80 percent of the patrons within one
hour for the regularly occurring daily needs.

Non-regular output demands occasioned by special
events and social and psychological needs of the regular
patrons as well as guests will require specific considera-

tion in production and service.

Input

It is assumed that the developing trends in food
technology will continue and intensify. Therefore it
appears advisable and feasible to establish that labor-
saving food items be incorporated as input whenever avail-
ability and quality justify their use. These may include
pre-portioned meat, fish and poultry; frozen, canned and
otherwise preserved vegetables, fruits and juices;_mixes;

raw—frozen bread items and other partially prepared products.

Process
Following from the state of preparedness of input
described above, process will be relatively simple with the
elimination of many pre-preparation steps. Emphasis will be
on assembling, mixing, applying heat, and finishing.
Selection of equipment will be governed to a degree

by capacity required for high product turnover demanded in

18

quick service and by batch and to-order preparation where
advisable for quality and quantity control.

The labor force will be smaller than in a tradi-
tional Operation and skills or qualifications will also vary

with the input requirements.

Environment

Considerations that will improve the physical,
sociological and psychological climate for the worker and
the patron include both functional and aesthetical values.

Heat and humidity control are essential to worker
comfort as is consideration of human engineering factors in
equipment and work area design (2).

It is suggested that the elimination of interior
wall structures may serve several purposes: It facilitates
supervision and in turn makes management more accessible to
the worker. It makes possible closer quantity control par—
ticularly for batch or to-order production. It may provide
an incentive for higher standards of sanitation and orderli-
ness. A general appearance Of wholeness or integralness
between production and service may raise morale among the
workers and also encourage immediate feedback about products

to promote greater customer satisfaction.

19
.Layout Rationale

The layout (Exhibit 4, pocket inside back cover)
includes the food production, service and dining areas of
a college student activity center. The exterior wall struc-
ture and the supporting pillars are shown as they appear in
the original plan for the entire building. ~An attempt was
made to leave these walls intact. However, as it became
apparent that more space was desirable in the dining area
and less in the production area it seemed advisable to sug-
gest a new exterior wall structure in two areas that do not
adjoin the remainder of the building.

The prime criteria for judgment of adequacy of a
layout is the degree to which the facility will accomplish
the function for which it is designed and the extent to
which it incorporates the principles of layout.

The design of the facility can be summarized as the
efficient and effective service of quality food.

The focal point for supply and demand or production
and service is the serving area. To effect the quick ser-
vice desirable for the routine daily needs, the hollow
square or shopping center type of service area is suggested.
It is an open system that allows random selection of items
desired with no specific sequence or line pattern. It
allows large groups to be served in a short period of time.

Laschober (9) recommends a space allowance of five

square feet per person for the heaviest hour-load of service.

20

This recommendation suggests that over seven hundred persons
could be served per hour in the approximate thirty-six
hundred square feet allowed in this layout for service area.

Integration is primarily a matter of recognizing
and/or establishing relationships. The relationships evident
in the proposed layout are recorded on Muther's relationship
chart. See Exhibit 2, page 13.

The "A" relationships include:

Refrigeration to main preparation

Main preparation to bakery

Main preparation and bakery to panwashing

Main preparation to service

Cold food preparation to service

Refrigeration to service

Service to dining

Dining to dishwashing

Dishwashing to service

Office to receiving

Office to main preparation and bakery

Office to cold food preparation

Office to service.
The list represents a significant number of "absolutely
necessary relationships". A contributing factor to this
high degree of integration is the "L" shaped production area
contiguous to the serving area via pass-through refrigerated

and heated holding units. The main dining area immediately

adjoins the serving area with the dishwashing strategically

 

l . . . . .

In a Similarly Sized and arranged serVing area in
Operation at Holden Hall, Michigan State University, the
manager states that 100 persons per five minute intervals
can be served at peak capacity.

21

located to form the desirable triangle. The Office area is
located as to allow adequate supervision of and ready
accessibility to receiving, preparation and service areas.

The principle of minimum movement has been incor-
porated through the close proximity of storage to prepara-
tion to service. This principle is epitomized in the
combination dairy storage and dispensing unit which allows
immediate point—of-use delivery.

The flow pattern is a symbolic representation of the
general arrangement of areas and the movement of supplies,
food, service, dishes and pans as shown in Exhibit 3. The
schematic diagram gives evidence that the flow is direct
with minimum backtracking, interruption or congestion.

Floor space has been effectively utilized. The back
to back arrangement of the heat-application equipment ‘
results in a consolidated bank economizing on floor and
ventilation area. The integration of bakeshop with main
preparation allows optimum use of equipment thus reducing
floor space requirements. Aisles have been planned to con-
centrate and facilitate movement in main traffic lanes and
to give sufficient space yet reduce unnecessary movements
in the working areas.

There has been an attempt to utilize cubic space in
the refrigerated and dry storage areas, in pan storage on
shelves and under tables and in staple bins under the work

table.

22

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Receiving
Refrigerated Storage
Dry 1
Storage ‘
Main Preparation
and
Bakery
w::§_ I Faculty
. and
ing Guest
. ~ Dining
Cold
Food T—J——4

 

 

 

Prep.

 

 

 

Serving Area

 

 

 

Dishwashing _———+T

 

 

 

 

 

I

 

Student Dining

 

 

 

EXHIBIT 3. Flow diagram showing functional relationships.

23

Undoubtedly careful study would reveal more possi-
bilities for effective use of cubic space.

.Flexibility is essential in planning for the varied
needs of the present and the possible demands of the future.
The production area has been planned to COpe with daily and
special requirements. Flexibility is also proposed for the
dining areas. This is accomplished through the use of fold-
ing partitions to adjust to varying group sizes. The recom-
mended increase in size and change in shape in the main
dining area permits use as a banquet room for the college
community and for catered events.2 The hollow square serv-
ing area with moveable tables will allow for rearrangement
for buffet service. Mobility in material handling and

production is incorporated throughout the plan.

 

2The recommendation is that the main dining room be
increased in size to 120' x 94' or 11,250 square feet. At
15 square feet per person necessary for round tables, 750
persons could be seated. This would reduce the dining room
turnover ratio and allow more leisurely dining. If on
occasion banquet tables are used in this same setting with
an allowance of 10 square feet per person, the entire stu-
dent body and faculty could be accommodated at the same time.

CONCLUSION

This has been an attempt to record the principles Of
industrial engineering that appear applicable to the design
and layout of food service facilities and to review a design
and present a rationale for a general layout for a specific
operation.

It is hoped that the identification of principles
will provide a framework for the appraisal Of technological
advances as they are made available to the food service
industry.

It is also hOped that the formulation of a design
and the preliminary planning for the general layout will
provoke further discussion, analysis and decisions by the
organizational and food service administrators, architect
and consultants and ultimately lead to the construction of
an efficient and effective operation that will accomplish

the function for which it is intended.

24

BIBLIOGRAPHY

10.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Apple, James M. Plant Layout and Materials Handling.
New York: Ronald Press Company, 1963.

Avery, Arthur C. "Maximizing Performance Through Human
Engineering." Paper presented at the Food Adminis-
tration Conference, Ames, Iowa, July 20-23, 1966.
(Mimeographed.)

Avery, Arthur C. "Work Design—-A New Approach to Food
Service Facilities." Paper presented at the Food
Administration Conference, Ames, Iowa, July 20-23,
1966. (Mimeographed.)

Bloetjes, M. K., and Gottlieb, Regina. "Determining
Layout Efficiency in the Kitchen." Jour. Am. Diet.
Assn., XXXIV (August, 1958), 829-835.

Dana, Arthur. Kitchen Planning for Quantity {pod
Service. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1949.

Folts, Franklin E. Iptroduction toggndustrial Manage-
ment. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.

Gottlieb, Regina, and Couch, Mary A. "Using the Cross
Chart in Planning Kitchen Layouts." Jour.-Am. Diet.
Assn., XXXVI (June, 1960), 585-592.

Kotschevar, Lendal H., and Terrell, Margaret E. .Food
Service Layout and Eguipment Planning. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1961.

Laschober, Joseph. A Short Course in Kitchen Design.
Chicago: Domestic Engineering Co., 1960.

Manchester, Colonel Katherine E. "Quantity and Quality
Production in Patient Feeding." Paper presented at
the 18th Conference of the Society for the Advance-
ment of Food Service Research. Boston, Massachu-
settes, April 22—23, 1968. (Mimeographed.)

25

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

26

Montag, Geraldine. "Development of Overall and
Detailed Layout." Paper presented at the Food
.Administration Conference, Ames, Iowa, July 20-23,
1966. (Mimeographed.)

Moore, James M. PlantLLayout and Design. New York:
Macmillan Company, 1962.

Muther, Richard. "Plant Layout." Industrial Engineer-
ing Handbook. Edited by H. B. Maynard. New York:
McGraw Hill CO. Inc., 1963.

Muther, Richard. Practical Plant Layout. New York:
McGraw Hill CO. Inc., 1955.

Muther, Richard. Systematic Layout Planning. Boston:
Industrial Education Institute, 1961.

Muther, Richard, and Wheeler, John D. Simplified
Systematic Layout Planning. Kansas City, Missouri:
Management and Industrial Research Publications,
1962.

Nadler, Gerald. Work Design. Homewood, Illinois:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1963.

Nadler, Gerald. Work Systems Design: ThegIdeals
Concept. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin,
Inc., 1967.

Reed, Ruddell. Plant Layout Factors, Principles and
Techniques. Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin,
Inc., 1961.

Reed, Ruddell, Plant Location, Layout and Maintenance.
Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967.

Sizelove, Oliver J. "Systems Design." Industrial
vEngineering Handbook. Edited by H. B. Maynard.
New York: McGraw—Hill Co. Inc“, 1963.

Tamashunas, Victor M. "Space Determination." Paper
presented at the Food Administration Conference,
Ames, Iowa, July 20—23, 1966. (Mimeographed.)

Thomas, Orpha Mae Huffman. A Scientific Basis for the
Design of Institution Kitchens. New York: Orpha
Mae Huffman Thomas, 1947.

Ix/IICHICAN STATE UI‘II‘.’ERSII‘{
COLLEGE OF IISI'I‘EE ECONOMICS
EAST LANSING. IvIImJ. CAN

 

A Problem 14.8. 1969
/' PROKOSCH, Sister Josita

The Application of Industrial
Engineering Principles to the
Design and Layout of a Food Service
Facility

 

 

 

IAICHIG AN STATE UNIVERSII‘Y LIIBRARIF

III III'

1293 02533 4735