GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
T
he Georgia Institute of Technology’s recent addition of a sprawling new student center, together with more than a year of hands-on experience, demonstrate that its decision to transition from contract foodservice to self-operated was a prescient one that will continue to pay dividends for years to come.
The Institute in Atlanta first reached out to Colorado-based consultancy Envision Strategies in August of 2020 about conducting a feasibility study for changing from contract-managed foodservice to self-operated. FCSI Associate Sojo Alex, a Memphis, Tennessee-based senior associate for Envision Strategies, and her colleague Ann Roebuck, principal, outlined the pros and cons of each operational model, as well as a side-by-side financial comparison of revenue and expenses. The Institute’s decision to proceed with the move to self-operation was finalized two months later. “Georgia Tech (GT) has had contracted dining
for decades,” says Ryan Greene, senior director of Georgia Tech Dining, the new self-operated dining brand for the campus, “but recently decided to move to self-operation largely due to a need to improve the student experience.”
His department is focusing on higher-quality food, more menu variety, authentic and diverse offerings, and an overall improved customer experience. “While dining contractors have a very important place in the higher education market,” Greene says, “we felt that we could deliver a better product to the GT campus if we managed operations ourselves.”
Taking the opportunity Georgia Tech Dining has a trio of residential dining halls, more than 20 retail locations, and an extensive
catering operation. “We have facilities across campus,” says Greene, “including the brand-new Student Center with 11 retail brands.” The school has a total enrollment of over 40,000, with almost 9,000 residential beds on campus. Envision Strategies and a team from Georgia
Tech collaborated on a detailed operational plan for the transition to self-operation. The project entailed conducting a feasibility study followed by the implementation of the plan and a combination of coaching and advising.
The self-operation began on July 1, 2021. The
consultancy developed suggested organizational structures and charts on how the dining program’s management could be organized, including operations, culinary, and the support functions of marketing, human resources and procurement. “We provided an estimate of transition costs
of approximately $2m," says Alex. "That included labor – what positions to hire at what time – staffing recommendations, needed technology and software, initial food inventory, signage, smallwares, brand licenses, development of concepts, recipes, policies and procedures, equipment and vans and trucks.” Georgia Tech was able to align programmatic
goals with the Institute’s overall goals, Alex explains. “Georgia Tech has total control of their own destiny, and [this] removes the dependency on large suppliers. They are more nimble and are limited only by their own resources.” In addition, the management team “is more likely to be stable and to consistently implement improvements in the program.” Once administrators got on board with the move
to self-op, Alex says, “they never wavered. It was not an easy road and it was not a short road, but they have been all in since that initial decision. We understand the feedback to be very positive.”
69
Above: Sojo Alex FCSI Associate of Envision Strategies. Opposite page: The motivation for changing to self-operation was to improve the Georgia Tech student experience
THE AMERICAS
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 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124
