 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
  |
|||||
 |
 |
Question: Food Service Dissatisfaction
Site expert Ken Stoner was asked how he would respond if the students on his campus were expressing high levels of dissatisfaction with the campus dining experience. Ken's answer is as follows:
Answer:
If there is a high level of dissatisfaction with the campus dining experience, the odds are that the administrator "in charge" has waited too long to effect orderly changes that under normal or preferred circumstances could have been implemented in some form of sequential, transitional, or proactive fashion. It is easier for a food service organization to stay current with the trends in customer preferences than it is to reorient an organization that has "nurtured" a high level of dissatisfaction among customers. "Nurtured" is probably the correct word -- an organization can nurture dissatisfaction just as easily as satisfaction.
Two key questions seem to be: (1) Is the food service organization a subsidiary of the University or a private food service provider under contract with the University? And, (2) Who is "in charge" of the food service organization and to whom does that person report?
Unfortunately, to "recover" from the negative perceptions, and to demonstrably indicate that a commitment is being made to improvement, some personnel changes will need to be made. If the food service provider is a private firm under contract with the University, the contract should be terminated and renegotiated with a commitment to achieve the level of services desired. This will, no doubt, include replacement of both the on-campus individual "in charge" for the private provider as well as the University contact or liaison with that individual. A high level of dissatisfaction would not have developed if these two key individuals were effectively doing their jobs.
Similarly, if the food service unit is a self-operation under the University organizational umbrella, then a "reassignment" outside the organizational chain of command is probably in order for both the food service director as well as the individual to whom the food service director reports.
Under either organizational scenario, a change in leadership in the two key positions identified is probably in order. With new leadership, all levels of service expectations can be re-established. The organizational change will also send a clear message to the rank and file employees that the organization must improve as well as to the customers that there is a commitment to improvement.
Further, the customers must be included in establishing the new service expectations. The exact nature of the dissatisfaction (hours of service, quality of food, portion size, lack of options, special functions, price, etc.) must be specifically determined and addressed. Focus groups could be convened to assist in this endeavor. And, following the initial reorganization and consolidated findings of the various focus groups, some form of standing food service committee should be established. Management and customers should routinely sit at the same table to discuss the operation and collaboratively address any concerns that may emerge.
It is a long and difficult road back from "dissatisfaction." However, I believe that this approach, albeit traumatic, constitutes the appropriate plan of action for recovery and return to "satisfaction."