PROJECTS
“Each dining program is unique, and there should never be a one-size-fits- all approach”
Unknown unknowns From the consultant’s perspective, the biggest challenge was that the Georgia Tech team “didn’t know what they didn’t know,” according to Alex. “We have experience with members of our team running dining programs, so we knew what to expect,” she explains. “However, this was all unfamiliar territory for Georgia Tech. We discussed two different approaches to the management of the operations, and how culinary expertise could fit. They selected one approach and began to implement it, and then discovered that the other option may work better. They made the switch, and this structure seems to be working better.” During the feasibility study and transition
to self-op, the school’s student center, where a significant portion of the retail program is housed, was closed for renovations. Although this was not a major factor in the decision to go self-op, Alex says, it made the transition “a bit more tricky.” While the Georgia Tech Dining team was still forming, they had to plan for the 11 food venues going into the new John Lewis Student Center. On the positive side, Alex notes, the team “was able to put its imprint on the new offerings as it opened in September 2022. We used several of our Envision Strategies team members to work on this project. We pulled resources in when we needed them and yet maintained a continuous pulse on the project.” For fiscal year 2023, Georgia Tech Dining’s total
The feedback from students indicates that food quality and variety have improved since the switch to self-op
70
budget is just over $40m. Projected annual sales for the new Student Center are $9m to $11m. Tech Dining currently has 325 employees aside from eight contracted, franchised retail operators that employ their own teams, with an additional 100 employees on campus. For this year’s fall semester, Greene and his
team are seeing an average of 12,000 to 15,000 transactions per day across the campus. “I wouldn’t state that we have completely
solved anything yet,” Greene says. “However, we have made significant progress in a few key areas. Our labor rates have dramatically increased since starting self-op, which has allowed us to hire more qualified employees.”
In addition, food quality and variety have
improved, based on significant student feedback by location. “We are continuing to focus on customer- service improvements and elevation of the student experience, but much progress has already been made in these key areas.”
Going in the right direction While Georgia Tech Dining has made great strides as a self-operated program, Greene says he does not yet consider it a “finished product. However, “we are very happy with our quality of food, menu variety, authentic recipes and offerings, and opening of our new Student Center.
Some of our expenses are higher than originally
anticipated,” he says, “but from a service perspective we have seen objective feedback that speaks to our program’s quick improvement, and we are happy with the direction we are going in.” Self-operation is not the answer for every dining program, Alex points out, “just like having a contract-managed program may not be the answer [for everyone]. Each dining program is unique, and there should never be a one-size-fits-all approach. Each operational model has its advantages.” Alex concludes: “Georgia Tech Dining is a great success story, but a lot of hard, boots-on- the-ground work has made it possible. This team has proven their success through the success of their operations.”
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
