46 | OPINION | CATERING AND HOSPITALIT Y
W:
www.universitybusiness.co.uk
KEEPING CATERING COSTS AT BAY By Jerry Brand, founder of education cost control initiative, The Facilities Collective
Most UK universities face similar bat les when it comes to dealing with rising food costs versus persistent spending cuts. But, the challenge still remains for the campus to deliver healthy, balanced meals for students in line with the increased demand from parents and students themselves, for bet er quality and variety, while still keeping spending at bay. Unfortunately, controlling catering
spend in a decentralised community is not that straightforward. The rising costs of food and beverages mean that every penny counts and the burden on fi nance departments to quash overspend and minimise food waste, as well as controlling general business overheads is at an all-time high.
Allocated personal allowances give a gentle control But I believe there is light at the end of the tunnel if certain changes are made. Controlling catering spend, developing quality but cost-eff ective recipes, managing stock, reducing food wastage while keeping on top of all of the purchases the department makes on a daily basis is a common challenge with other universities. What’s needed is a cultural and technical shift across the whole education sector towards a more unifi ed, collective way of purchasing goods and services (both catering and general business overheads). Take the multiple service centres responsible for ordering food and drink for the university as an example; they could quite happily blow the entire budget if they are not controlled properly, both from amount expended and potential choice of suppliers. The answer here is to control what each individual person, group and department spends by having pre-agreed allocated spending allowances that are automated ie John Smith has authority to sign off order values of up to £500 per week, when purchasing exceeds that, the department head is alerted in advance of the budget being spent so that they can make the decision on whether to authorise that transaction or not. This puts the power back into the managers’ hands while gently controlling individual spend in a diplomatic way.
Collaborate online Another interesting perspective is that even though most university catering departments face the same ongoing challenges day to day, they still continue to work in isolation of each other. When you start to realise that everyone is actually sit ing on the same side of the fence, you start to see the potential for change and the implications that has on controlling costs. Archaic IT systems and withered
processes have not helped universities keep on top of spending in general or to feel empowered when dealing with catering suppliers. This is partly as a result of outdated technology and resource-hungry systems, and sometimes the ‘stuck in a rut’ syndrome or fear of new technology and change. The result is the same mistakes are repeated day in day out, pushing many universities further away from regaining control of catering spend.
Fit-for-purpose technology paves the way So long as universities are supported by fi t for purpose, modern online purchase order and fi nance technology, they will be able to control budgeted expenditure across their teams on a 24/7 basis. Technology should also enable live- pricing online for catering products and services from the university’s choice of local and national suppliers. So, if universities united as one when dealing with external catering suppliers, collectively put ing their considerable spend to work, that would also help to drive down costs of goods and force suppliers to be more competitive on price. Having the correct information to make an informed choice on who to buy from would go some way to providing universities with the knowledge that the goods they purchase are competitively
WITHERED PROCESSES HAVE NOT HELPED UNIVERSITIES KEEP ON TOP OF SPENDING"
"ARCHAIC IT SYSTEMS AND
priced. Sustainably reducing the base cost of catering goods and services is also vital. The real enemy here is the invisible plethora of ‘middle-men’ who sit quietly between the university and the grower/ food manufacturer. They all face the nation’s increased austerity measures and so prices rise to off set this.
Jerry Brand
Self-improvement Technology should act as a self- improvement tool through the connectivity and information that it can provide across the internet. Modernising universities’ fi nance teams through reducing the paperchase will help save time and they can then start to work together in the bat le to control catering costs to simultaneously benefi t from the experience. The power of joining every university’s collective purchasing online, whether catering or across other areas of the campus (which would be signifi cant in terms of spend) will mean that all establishments regardless of size, geography, denomination or style, can benefi t from purchasing together. UB
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