It’s not rubbish! Rob Britton
OPINION
Rob Britton gets his hands dirty as he analyses ways in which to measure catering waste. Give him your feedback now!
Regular readers may have noticed a bit more 'edge' in recent columns. It’s a conscious decision on my part to provoke an industry that sometimes is far too complacent and lacks innovation. Passengers notice, too, and they’re the ones who truly matter.
Historically, people in almost all businesses have focused on positive outcomes, for example, on knowing more about who buys what. But one of the most fascinating trends in information technology and 'big data' is looking carefully at what doesn’t happen. What didn’t they buy? How much wasn’t used? And why? In airline and other transport catering, one of these questions is: “What didn’t they eat?” I first got interested in this 15 years ago when, without prior food service experience, I was asked to head the catering team for a large US carrier. Touring large kitchens was one way to learn, and I caused my minders heartburn by veering off toward the back-end and the dishline. I loved to chat with the people pulling the stuff off the carts. As I researched the question, I became interested in the whole question of 'garbology'. It turns out to have quite a following among many academics, less so people in commerce.
Fast-forward to today, and the question is ever more relevant for airlines and other buyers, and for caterers who want to be responsive. Systematically capturing and analysing what doesn’t get consumed on board – what becomes 'garbage' – is a simple but powerful idea based on three premises: 1) statistically reliable data can be obtained from relatively small
66
WWW.ONBOARDHOSPITALITY.COM
sample sizes; 2) digital capture technology – not human eyeballs – can be used to quantify and sort the information; and 3) it allows you to create a comprehensive knowledge base about your service. There are at least four benefits. First and most important, knowing what doesn’t appeal enables airlines to improve passenger satisfaction. Second, reducing waste saves money. Third, systematic feedback enables carriers and caterers to correct mistakes, regardless of cause. And lastly, if desired, this stream of information could be monetised – lots of people would like to know what’s good and what's not. This also makes sense because carrier feedback loops are typically weak. In most cases, neither flight attendants nor their supervisors and managers proactively gather consistent customer input. Voluntary passenger feedback
Capturing and analysing what doesn't get consumed on board – what becomes 'garbage' – is a simple but powerful idea with many benefits
is incomplete, anecdotal, and typically negative. And cost and human-resource pressure at many airlines, especially older ones, makes innovation difficult.
This is not pie in the sky. We know how to teach an imaging device to read and count that half-eaten slice of melon or the unopened wedge of packaged cheese. Sensible statistical analysis can work with relatively small sample sizes. And you can configure the technology to minimise impact on dishlines and processes. Who will be first? Some creative airline or other carrier will partner with a caterer, prove the concept in one location, refine it, then replicate it system-wide. It’s not that hard. And it would make a huge difference, it would be a win-win innovation for passengers, airlines, and suppliers alike. If you’re interested, send me an e-mail – I’ve done a bunch of work already.
rob.britton@
airlearn.net
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100