Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Quality mgmtkfc


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Quality mgmtkfc

  1. 1. Quality Management at Kentucky Fried Chicken UDAY M. APTE Cox School of Business Southern Methodíst University Dallas, Texas 75275-0333 CHARLES C. REYNOLDS KFC National Management Company 5605 North MacArthur Boulevard, No. 650 lrving, Texas 75038 Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corporation, a member of the quick-service restaurant industry, uses a sophisticated program to manage the quality of service it offers to its customers. In the last quarter of 1989, the south central division of KFC launched a test program in four Oklahoma City restaurants to improve the speed of service at its drive-through-window operation. It proved extremely successful. The restaurants cut service time by more than half while improving labor productivity. They also dramatically outperformed other restaurants in the division in profits, sales growth, and growth in customer transactions. The improved processes in the test restaurants have served as benchmarks for other KFC restaurants aiming for continuous process improvement, while the reduced service time now serves as the revised specification in KFC's quality measure- ment and management program. Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) Corpo- erated sales of over $3 billion while serv- ration, USA, is a member of the Pep- ing over 600 million customers. KFC has sico family of quick-service restaurants. Es- several basic types of restaurants; the most tablished in 1952, the KFC system consists common type being a dine-in restaurant of 2,000 company-owned and over 3,000 with a customer seating area that includes franchised restaurants. In 1992, KFC gen- a condiment bar and a drive-through- Ccvpyrighl (u 1995, Institute for Operations Research INDUSTRIES-ACRICULTURE/ FOOD and the Management Sciences PRODUCTION/ SCHEDULlNC-WORK STUDIES 0091-2102/95/2503/0006501 25 This paper was referced INTERFACES 25: 3 May-June 1995 (pp. 6-21) Copyright@ 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  2. 2. íhiügtü, ariannie@ a : me the most compañia@ and saturateã '” , T comes at: the ; expense some uther marker share, , l @nagtitiis ã * in this init ? ane aalaga that: ittai sirríplàr mr to a * , quality saving. MQIIEQXEI; improving ser-a leading *tm lower: an@ iserszmé; Quality, &came; :in late 353931153, a Quality* Management fragrant a @niyang *geatness angan@ marrionie: * expeefaíions; idelining; product: ensuring @as Being mãufactuíaã fthat the @me at ; " i g : Farm in: ããfeétgrt SJ; this th@ i lt í i a a; relevance to@ the success; @or ram53; `” ; of : imi nging Quality in service businesses, ail- íêrent more etíaílíergítííg sa : a &üàiíi élraraeterílsííns : inherent: fu ; aawitan ins some cases and, the ? the icreafiom services; cause the @ni ehorft a Séít@ prn- ness examined_ fionsegníenílàig qpalify @gift ERES@ Tãüfüfêür and discuss “tlíêtñíéçílf : ; guam: : management : needs to: ?control not: tinig; the tane; aria , àjüñíéãíãííéã sa. ? “are speed of @serafica : it offers izustonters. in i - ' “y, e i this fundarrterttail ãtghgttçmjgg gigi@ : -flor maaaring fifte- . an@ eleinrae llingss: fps ige @fanatics m; territories this @E a íestauraní@ ; recess : implementation are inaugurated} i . . i' 1 quality ñüiíégtí f prepare@ for senior: * management sa? f l? » . n a* ^ "na annemar and f@ ilite 7 that! : : it íífs : temperatura ; ang rrraríkfef-urífentedí sunugin are atlis@ the ity ; agam sewing na @seminars their ; i ñriê-aof product an@ sandree Quality, nanamang: :íñíñít @ãíñüãí ãíl Rights
  3. 3. APTE, REYNOLDS their relative importance to the customers of a quick-service restaurant. It uses the understanding of customer expectations it gains in designing and continually revising its quality measurement schemes. KFC receives customer complaints via complaint cards available at all KFC res- taurants and through letters and phone calls from customers. A KFC representative responds to each customer complaint by letter or phone. KFC also monitors and tracks the number and the types of com- plaints different restaurants receive. KFC regularly uses market tracker sur- veys to measure its performance on key customer service attributes compared to that of its competitors (such as Mc- Donald's and Wendy's). The customer ser- vice attributes it tracks include speed of service, mispacks, courtesy, product qual- ity, and value for money spent. The quarterly quality report plays an im- portant role in KFC's quality management program. Providing data on customer ex- pectations and KFC's performance allows management to take immediate corrective actions. KFC's quality management pro- gram also emphasizes continuous improve- ment of processes, employee empower- ment, and training of employees in the use of quality management tools and techniques. Quality, Service, Cleanliness (QSC) Program KFC implemented the QSC program in 1977. This program is designed to measure and evaluate quality at each KFC restau- rant, company owned or franchised, from the Viewpoint of a customer. "Mystery shoppers, " independent individuals con- tracted by KFC, evaluate the quality, ser- INTERFACES 25:3 vice, and Cleanliness of each restaurant. Mystery shoppers are well trained to use the standard QSC form (Figure l) so that they perform each evaluation in an objec- tive, accurate, and consistent manner. KFC revises and updates the form frequently to ensure that it reflects the ever-changing customer expectations, as revealed in the surveys. Mystery shoppers conduct a QSC evalu- ation of each restaurant twice a month. However, restaurant general managers use a shortened version of the same form, the "QSC alert form, " to conduct daily self- evaluations of their restaurants. lt helps managers to take immediate improvement actions, such as instructing and helping employees to perform their jobs in the right way. It also helps managers to incul- cate an awareness of customer expectations among restaurant employees. Operations Facility Review Customers expect consistent and high quality products and services in all KFC restaurants. Hence, operational excellence is critical to KFC's success. The objective of the operations facility review (OFR) is to help KFC to ensure nationally consistent, high operating standards and performance in all its restaurants through the use of a standardized evaluation program. The OFR evaluation program measures a restau- rant's performance against KFC's operating standards (Figure 1). The OFR program parallels the QSC program except that the OFR evaluators are KFC employees. KFC trains the OFR evaluators rigorously to ensure that they perform all evaluations in an objective, ac- curate, and consistent manner. Restaurant general managers are required to complete Copyright@ 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  4. 4. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN QSC Evaluation Form Service Quality (50 Points) o Service time (total and window time) o Attentive, energetic, warm, and courteous service O Professional appearance, including wearing a uniform o Accuracy of order taking and filling (no missing or extra items) o Helpful, suggestive selling Product Quality (30 Points) The following criteria are measured for all products-chicken products (original recipe, crispy, hot wings, etc. ), cold and hot side items (such as cole slaw, potato salad, French fries, biscuits, etc. ) and beverages: o Standard temperature o Absence of visible shortenlng and proper breading of chicken o Color, texture, overall appearance O Proper filling and closing of containers Cleanliness (20 Points) o Clean entrance doors and windows o Clean and well-supplied rest rooms o Clean and neat service counter and surrounding area o Clean and neat customer seating area o Neat exterior, well-maintained landscaplng Operations Facility Review Form Product/ Process Quality (44 Points) Evaluate each product using the following criteria: o Quality standards for ingredients used o Storage and handling of ingredients o Cooking procedures; time, temperatures, cleanliness, etc. o Hold time Facilities (16 Points) Clean, neat, and well-maintained facilities (interior and exterior) and fixtures Customer Viewpoint-Service and Product Quality (15 Points) Selected items from QSC form: service time, courtesy, order taking and filling accuracy, product temperature, and appearance Sanitation/ Operations (15 Points) o Procedures used and frequency of cleaning processes for kitchen, service counters, seating areas, and rest rooms o Equipment clean, well maintained, and in good working order Critical Issues o Presence of rodents, cockroaches, other insects o Cross contamination potential due to faulty procedures or equipment o Spoiled, reprocessed, or unapproved products being sold O EmpIoyee(s) with communicable disease Figure 1: Kentucky Fried Chicken uses two quality management instruments, the QSC evaluation form and the operational facility review form. May-June 1995 9 Copyright © 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  5. 5. :at: least ; once a week Mangan@ must also mr: iisiping i íóieiéstaiíanr f i , i premises iin; sacordante width, , EEE@ ãogeraítinã a tot? maj ortresjpíonsilííiàlifíeg, th@ aeriiorizmaíageínf Kíàiíílsélãoutíw , iílíliã itama ãfiêãílíffüííññéiíg evaluates: div 'i @idda _ Itr the iii 'i t* the jgrólziílerñs, mhe margin hadi ; eroded fri; ígítéígítt ; Eis @rio: - m “ 'Sfféãlüã Q; *the , ,, and : rrrarlàet: as@ liar ? êxi- írailfíofí: qtripflàz-seràrziee : restaurant: in- dustria sarggfurtes at? @isara and Exam sales talata» 1513@ *that ; rougihly gensan@ of its sales volume aras J' ; :sa titira tsinelas: * i , @ifilm Sleaze semis@ perceived customers? mas a: parífrculaiíy“ seraiñte is unguuíestífonabfly : the xràiürãfítéríãíãü sf serafica? a @VTYSTW W@ : also «exyíríermíitíg , ai feeel: ; immigrati- íiamlànrger @perators: snélr H combined with. the slowness spelled tremble hati nzo ; zompejíifisie std- yarrtãge ase: : the: : dñxêatlíirougííi. or rrraívrsíqtríülê restaurants that used drive-through as : a: : maíor : -ctf ginger seratiseé could @also a: {ninanais “ mg@ products, , : But: S? towers ? rad *to ; wait gg): 1 h* “i * 'i tm f@ “these graduate again, .. @si dilerím @gawas i turned : off the here esther: in fact: ti: {gas &as; íiüiíñéã therefore, , set a: dramatic? improve@ rrreriít in speed of Séfãtíiéê as ijíài i@ @r5 question sonic? really as ir; “ban, fine-tuned : omar ; Inang years. , and: saari Reynolds, . then; regional manage@ a my to@ reduce rima a ürganiàziing ífíE at ester same arr@ s tous restaw- rants ? in as , far the için their operations, *mufiíszatteã anan- agéizs : fea iüííi, r is: üklahornai ani ísolafkd in {Eis regísñ sense ; these , in; apxívrtershífg meant: : that had, total aramid riser the marked@ @ãíñüàl All Rights
  6. 6. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN ing and promotion) activities at the restau- rants. This ensured that any improvements in financial and market performance real- ized during the test would emanate solely from improving speed of service and other operational changes, and not from adver- tising and promotion programs. Before starting the test, Reynolds secured permis- sion from the president of domestic opera- tions and the vice-president of operations at the regional level to insure that no inter- nal obstacles (such as the marketing de- partment introducing a new promotion program in the region or the industrial en- gineering department insisting on intro- ducing new procedures and equipment in the midst of the test) would prevent the test from being successful. After choosing the test restaurants, Reynolds formed the DTW test team. This team, led by Reynolds, included the mar- ket manager, four restaurant general man- agers, the training manager, a maintenance coordinator, and an operations specialist from operation services. As a result of their participation in the "quality foundation workshop, " all team members were well versed in quality management concepts, such as the nature of variability and Deming's "plan-do-check-act" methodol- ogy. They were also knowledgeable in data-collection techniques and problem- solving tools and techniques, such as Pareto charts, fishbone diagrams, flow charts, and statistical process-control charts. Through self-guided quality man- agement training programs that relied on videos and books, the team members were also exposed to the teachings of Shigeo Shingo [1987, 1988a, 1988b], a noted Jap- anese quality management guru. Although May-]une 1995 Shingo, formerly a manufacturing engineer at Toyota, is primarily known for dramatic reduction in machine setup time through waste reduction, for zero quality control through poka-yoke (or mistake-proof methods), and for process improvement techniques in manufacturing, his methods have been found to be equally useful in the service arena. Their knowledge of quality-management concepts, tools, and techniques proved very useful to the team members during the test as they systemati- cally analyzed data, generated ideas for improvements, and implemented them in their individual restaurants. Test Team in Action The first meeting of the team in Okla- homa City was chaired by Reynolds. lt was devoted mainly to a discussion of the problems facing KFC, the importance of improving drive-through operation, the need for the test, and the test's potential benefit to their individual restaurants and to the company. The discussion helped raise the team members' commitment to the fundamental goal of improving the speed of service at DTW. During the meet- ing, Reynolds charged the team members with responsibility for finding and imple- menting ways to continuously improve DTW speed of service, and in return, he promised to fully back them up in their ac- tions. Based on the benchmark data for com- petitors' service times gathered through market tracker surveys, Reynolds and the team decided to reduce service time at drive-through windows from over two minutes to 60 seconds at all the test restau- rants. Everyone in the division considered this goal unrealistic, but Reynolds believed 11 Copyright@ 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  7. 7. APTE, REYNOLDS that only by setting a somewhat unrealistic goal with a shared vision could people rise to the occasion and meet or even beat the goal. In addition to setting the ultimate project goal of dramatically improving window service time, the team also speci- lied several subgoals: -To acknowledge customers within three seconds of their arrival at the speaker; -To fill customer orders within 60 sec- onds of their arrival at the drive-through window; and --To serve customers within a total aver- age service time of less than 1.5 minutes. The test team decided to start the project by developing good baseline information on average service times, as experienced by customers, in all stages of DTW operation (Figure 2). The team needed to measure the time a customer spends at the menu board placing the order, the time a cus- tomer takes to drive from the menu board to the drive-through window, including waiting time in a queue, if any, and ñnally the time a customer "hanga" (waits) at the window to get the order, make payment, and drive away. The team needed a good timing device. It had to have three fea- tures-a trigger mechanism that could sense the presence of a customer's car at a given point in the driveway; a device to display the current window hang time to DTW employees; and an ability to count cars, to compute various service time aver- ages, and to print these averages. The team located a suitable computerized timer, made by US Computer Systems of Cincin- nati, Ohio. KFC purchased four such tim- ers, at a cost of about 531,500 each, and in- stalled them in the four test restaurants. The team ran the timers in all four restau- INTERFACES 25:3 30% F 60% 58% 'g 40% g 31% l- 3 E 20% g 1 1% , ,., I Menu Board Travel Window Tina `I'íma Hang Tima Drive-Through-Window Transaction Figure 2: The Pareto chart shows the relative amounts of time a customer spends in three components of total service time in DTW op- eration: menu board time (from a customer's arrival at the menu board until the order has been given); travel time from menu board to window (including waiting in a queue, if any); and window hang time (from a custom- er' s arrival at the window to the customer's departure). The team disregarded the time a customer sometimes spends waiting in a queue leading to the menu board because of the infrequency of the event and measurement problems. rants for two weeks to generate baseline information on various service times. Armed with service-time information, the team met again to prepare and analyze a Pareto chart of the components of total service time (Figure 2). With about 58 per- cent of total service time in the DTW oper- ation accounted for by window hang time, the team's greatest challenge and opportu- nity to improve speed of service lay in im- proving window hang time. Having established the current average window-hang time for each restaurant, the team discussed what the short-term win- dow-hang-time goals should be. Following Reynolds' suggestion, the team settled on a step-wise reduction in service time with a IO-percent reduction at each step. Thus, if 12 Copyright © 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  8. 8. a: :esa taurant: mas the} asked the : :as: : . ; to mixture the itry ser; - mrds, . : Reynolds suggested this oortserrtaétime fíilêilíigéífaum during satire ürtreíãe@ eXg tsp had that: when: targeted ” v` ' ; aim íáãtaur-r hawig ãto ; close those gaps: Huielêlgi it@ all ? four resiaurartít ggrrgrgl; agrêeã diwata , iQ-percent improvement at ttreira-iempíogees muli@ meet: this I: iaasíirrípgürtàiirttíxar zêngílpgggs mold “build their i@ Elàmwílííñítü towards ulti- : Iírígrgüüiàüg me i a i ` ? ñ- HT@ @üüü it the ? arem- team aTso-“jbgrjjajn-a ro generate fasas {or itang time, , @gising : improvement rrietlroãísg, : :level- wliaít a: saitama ; üííêírttíe gei: : @iritang Q? ng: fill ia «orders pull down: ?that are Mãgwàfüfííê rises E team 'members alias needed tionali @griffin to: iimplement@ ãemplzígzees were best: sources p? : they sdmírteíi ijo? fjflrgjir and : Take: fbji"“fílgm *tm and íñíríüãííííté for , , deriíãeí : form ítlni : sarah ; restaurant ga team@ o: im tsansa, the _ team: : liters respçzííisítíle gmamit@ @me ness ílíiílítfümémíéfíiííiíüiéãs and; for? imple- *tblozzkerí log: * in: whíeti emplozézegsa rítíuíã afford: ffbíotílíàaiü @designing: 33311535:: spiral with: a aftaéhrej, WE@- àyêr @mild, not fill a arden birzzer @tr Elie 'timer would go sitgrrgíljfgg singles@ ri; iíaeiñilãg Biarker : mess ãfre “blocker was held ' T; íífiíàfícíáílíy the f *two weeks. The team used: ilite most: frequent: an@ f “i , fhalleãtzi the s . j ' @ãíñüãí iãíl ãíülíià
  9. 9. APTE, REYNOLDS selected solutions, and then the whole pro- cedure was repeated. ln one of the early meetings, the team developed a fishbone chart (Figure 3) identifying three key causes of slow ser- vice: problems with headsets, out-of- product condition, and poor equipment layout. With the help of restaurant teams and DTW employees, the team members developed and implemented plans for solving each of these problems in each of the four restaurants. For example, they Equipment No headsets and headsets not working* Poor equipment layout' monitors Too many types of packaging boxes Low sales items No best-practice standards lnadequate stafling No order-display Menu-board clarity solved the headset problem by instituting a procedure for testing all headsets regularly to ensure that they worked properly, and by ordering and stocking adequate supplies of frequently needed batteries and replace- ment belts. The four restaurants repeated this pro- cess for about 10 months until they achieved the major goal of 60 seconds window hang time. The following are some of the major changes they made to operational procedures and facilities, No training No sense of urgency . Service delay at DTW Item pricing/ T ime spent in counting change Packing errors Figure 3: The DTW test team used the blocker log to construct this fishbone chart during its second brainstorming session when it analyzed the causes of delay at drive-through-window operations of the four test restaurants. It then classified the causes and plotted them. Next it determined the most important causes based on the frequency of their occurrence and the im- pact of each cause. The team identified three major causes (t). The test team and the restaurant teams generated solutions for eliminating these causes and implemented them in the test restaurants. IN TERFACES 25:3 Copyright © 2001 All Rights Reserved 14
  10. 10. KEN TUCKY FRIED CHICKEN categorized under the lessons learned in the test: (1) They rationalized process flow and improved equipment layout to eliminate wasted motion and to reduce service time. The employees of each restaurant totally reorganized their drive-through areas, put- ting products, condiments, bags, boxes, cups, and salads in more convenient loca- tions. They positioned each item along the pack line according to its demand level. High demand products were made easily accessible to the packers and were also placed in the display packing system to be more visible to the cooks and the DTW leaders so that they could replenish those just in time. Changing the orientation of the display packing system from its origi- nal position parallel to the window to per- pendicular, at an average cost of about $7,000, turned out to be a simple but very powerful idea. It streamlined the move- ment of products from the kitchen to the packing area to the window. Moreover, it reduced the number of steps a packer took from about six to two and saved precious time and effort in packing each order. The restaurants also bought some additional equipment. For example, they installed "pack monitors" that were connected to the order-taking system. These pack moni- tors were instrumental in accurately and quickly informing packers of the specific contents of every order while the order was being taken and entered into the sys- tem by the window person. Finally, the restaurant moved its equipment (coolers, warming cabinets, cup dispensers, and so forth) around to make walking through and servicing the drive-through area much easier. May-June 1995 (2) They changed the product mix and specifications. The restaurants streamlined their menus to eliminate the "out-of- product" blocker. They eliminated a num- ber of slow-moving items, such as French fries, Kentucky nuggets, and sandwiches. At one restaurant, this alone reduced aver- age window hang time by as much as 20 seconds. They replaced multiple desserts The profit margin had eroded from 16 to eight percent. with a single dessert item. The team tested "even-dollar pricing" for the big-pack items on the menu board. For example, they priced a 10-piece (chicken) meal at $11.18 so that inclusive of tax it totalled to $12.00. Both the customer and the cashier saved a lot of effort and time counting change. The even-dollar items averaged 15 to 20 seconds less at the window. (3) Many small process improvements ultimately added up to a large improve- ment. The restaurants implemented a number of process improvement ideas. Each idea may have had only a tiny im- pact on service time. However, collectively, these ideas had a large impact. For exam- ple, the restaurants eliminated redundant packaging boxes so that packers needed only one or two standard boxes to pack any order. Thus, packers could focus on packing orders in the shortest possible time without worrying about whether they were using the proper box. (4) They used headsets to create cus- tomer focus and to convert serial activities into parallel ones. The use of headsets by all DTW employees allowed them to per- 15 Copyright@ 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  11. 11. nustonrer @Ideas, example, packing as: 501511. as a ginsfgmfgr : order aisa: ttêtprã» ímpmízíe a * “ vérítiíig àéríãí aaetiviüees: int@ parami agnes in: fc r: ~: ` nam: : mga@ ing itte win-dom Eg Q@ understand. and muta aate/ SE i: - ; m tire ser-tzie@ praises@ the Eli's 133 should: “na samar ira mas install clear* signs, suülr as an order_ liiére-ãígxír at the @imastahr-girgir : semi bpíml ; and itte “time spent at: menu ànother ? diagrams i@ rearrange sadiri plage orders : f and . , àãíàsíiíya 31395? 'a 4 ssma? ) , , 'V r@ that *the eüsítqñtars waiting; melt eustomer departed, the: timer icuátonrer as @veil m the average Wíüw r. . _ s m@ às: a mid as ideal xesfaurantísà íeader sei: a; ;naduling + durim 'tm problem-solving; aesífabíistreü simple ` ~ 'i i “miss ma: suggestionsa : liit addition “tot, walking ? sem strive@ t@ satsat@ a i. : alignment andi to Hmouragg employ- * the: prdaess. 2 ; ko i g A W all@ file - "ídíeasiãme @them arã ^ serial @agria-titties ima pajallel mes prev@ aemplíogees *tm try anyííttíríg that: sfeerrreã : eàsàñàmét The : em @pattçígcí, tme past stages amis; sa *tfratríê ltíilãêüííifiíñüã whatever: strange sírraígxk. m? :Eeãmãmnt @My ; are employ-zte suggestions, that is; *tm ãñüli i@ mediately. , created an: MIIEIECHãELnfEã : Employers j* ” ' if were to pumasa ãmproyíetw ? to , : larry sgesííafl “training sto? Effects , . . : ; ige all: igmpílbgees Workínggzzirt ? that aíífêàz vit? ? ? Eãm @ãíñüãí ãíl Rights
  12. 12. SQTZEYQTEQUYEES, . and rariít equipment; for example, , were shared the: stations o? front: munta: * i * all ? empííígees : itt the restaurant ííarí @on: - íIISíEíCll games@ and awaüs to: : all their* ern- " . : hang time, all “restaurant rem- ãügrg ? Theater rewards included: sppjeiíally printed T* ` . L, I; giit “lifts rewards @mariah @Eng the ; pride *thai* mrrploàrees fools als@ improving the : rrroraile as? ? entire resfauraítt; rgm a: n? life for managers. :rite _ f géírímí mata-a agew is He@ : far : iha : oartgp . é s' ` i i “ i . riivíííuaííl restaurant@ iha **test pro» improve! tiotieeabflàg, , th@ ihireasirigíf : :zommitteçã *tm i _ assurtrã ownership of the and r@ ãiãérttíízw sgíaraíoàçíyãzüh guni thinking. . Interesting@ itte changed? .. Even: casual: Mrivera}- sier-xzím For example, ?trey azizgm@ ” “áaàféra ãüaszersoríã Turns? : lions. i”. `üe “team always ? kept arr gge tita « r. ? “ i ; a marata " 'a. y g . i panduwa@ ser-víae-üm@ studies arm ãmmed girgir-rangatira@ the test ma; *me my m suítahly ; aggressive mrme-times targets notes “Rggnplds «outlining sirenasa stories and @umiiwas ever: ?their alt fire@ mgíaujant$ flíeígrrolüs @na th@ wjiníãovjhang-time: results; íbrctheé agit-wars : samga austria@ prinsesa control: zham@ auch as ? ii-har and íí-har ? a ; ji ' : gasgas für @harming saitama -' *i , - ge; to; MEE and attractiva graglñs restaurants gradiíilàg* improvement th@ expected; the Hence, log adeñiírittonr, sgsterrr waa not 'team : not nsa- QE-àar during ; that rest in: sítàtrísñsaíl @am51 QE! : : se 331e; hang “times ma@ a: declining the @Tàífffê “i that the Villalba* &R; of the system under maiiggit, Was : a . . * iv ? LA T @nama, ait @ãíñüàl ãíl Rights
  13. 13. APTE, REYNOLDS 8 AVG I 13 39 LCL = 71 9! X-har (seconds) q 0 40 Week R-bar (seconds) a' B ü? ; VG = 628 (ll LCL =0 Figure 4: The DTW test team used statistical process control charts for monitoring trends in average window hang time and for controlling its variability at the four test restaurants. These charts were produced in week 43. They were drawn using window-hang-time data for the 23 weeks ending in week 42, the last week of test, for one of the test restaurants. The X-bar chart is essentially a plot of the average window hang time. Of critical importance in this chart are the upper and lower control limits (UCL and LCL), which are computed on the basis of a 99 percent confidence interval for sample data. In using a control chart, one generally considers a process to be stable (in control) if most data points fall between the UCL and LCL lines. Given declining hang time, that is, instability of the system, we mainly used the X-bar chart during the test to ensure that the hang time was declining steadily. Hang time for the given restau- rant has steadily improved starting in week 33, coinciding with the introduction of incentives and games for DTW employees in that restaurant. The R-bar chart plots the average of the range (that is, the difference between the longest and the shortest time) for window hang times within each sample. In the chart below, the range for window hang times has consis- tently stayed between UCL and LCL, indicating that the range, or the variability, of the process is in "control" with a 99-percent confidence level. restaurant general managers to quickly see the trends in their performance and whether they were improving over time. Every week, Reynolds put the control charts for the previous week for all the res- taurants together and sent them to all the restaurant teams so that everyone could see everyone else's performance. Reynolds made it a practice to send the team and the restaurant employees immediate positive feedback to ensure a competitive environ- ment and their enthusiasm and excitement. He attached short complimentary notes to the control charts indicating that a given idea had apparently improved service speed in a given restaurant for the pre- vious week. As the test progressed, the window hang time improved steadily. The tempo in- INTERFACES 25:3 creased and the excitement grew. One res- taurant team got so excited that they vid- eotaped their drive-through window in ac- tion, with a timer running, to demonstrate how fast they were at the drive-through- window service, and they sent that tape to the president of KFC in Louisville, Ken- tucky. Such pride in doing the job right had rarely been exhibited before in the his- tory of KFC. The president of KFC person- ally called the restaurant to congratulate the manager and the restaurant team for their speed-of-service initiatives and ac- complishments. The company subse- quently recognized the manager as the dis- trict's restaurant manager of the year dur- ing the yearly regional performance recognition seminar. And it honored the restaurant team with a dinner at the res- 18 Copyright@ 2001 AII Rights Reserved
  14. 14. ñíçéêíílímügüíartírtíqwíüam ífce @ginagawang &strategy; wine 133@ más itim. : ge ífntiírsíím díeríiirreñ T seconds in 5D satanas si @week test ; periods @di @is I able toíreríiíuíe average window “time ili@ initial t@ th@ àãàl ; ni , a “ çliçésiilts ' i t ' : 1 f tire tsítíié ni 25@ ; nemis window güu} àiglnifieanfl it "was an goat «are ; as the : aim &gius- fíyiíg showed, @Ki/ igua implications for mst perfor- zíttreaseã. front about “mim the r: : ; sine after fest; Th? ? é íàuíanís went: and. gener-mgng and: stantiaíly improved their matira ãíítíffg às aabrtrggarfí to: ílíeir Wami it: . ; ii ' * winter the transactions for and three *permit wr@ marife “ “1.- aríhíeved higher; SHTES groítzxííht $33 ? rants grew ma@ *while the : o: dismal; and the division seating: : me is ; proíiucííírífg as measured ire HTW “transge- : res- taurants the df- perceniíirt: tire : santo ãime-fggmgj, ãíñíãéãüítíg : Tare *that me futari arw : ia- mia fñemwméarmremreàmmíu an? of íííê téãít restaurants. - . i o may ask, , this : simply q . i íãyíe these a; f all; ili@ team, ããíite 'the ãemígíngms not a; r: .; :ií . l' ” the other a the áítíiüíítéã in ríhémaícer speed: ayee@ @F semis@ it: : that; Question is no, , it; i: sa» Hàwmüfü@ $173@ f; ' i t E* üíã priírrtarílyrtfrtom the: martagméñí : is mote : ganja @ãíñüãí ãíl Rights
  15. 15. from various ogeratfontfl íírngmzements. in a a to ? iti tim division; magtataka@ te Eérs *toívisilz _ th@ 1?@ i@ iéiüfíímíãflüíijüyííüwméffí the speed m? services at: their* iíñãfaítím; 1319s* issrgfsíríglíg. ; _ ggngral quickly *understood “tlreegrogramíéàs heneñts and . , th@ *team members @as ; coaches, set: ng a: training session: :tier that r: : computerized, timers made *various- i" i signage@ are: ;as : titig team members shared the ? key ietssons from tas this nam? : harris si ? mss i a i m to days to: Team and undies- staímt más explained, ra thess i oizements in @service restaurants; readlííezí . the goal of seconds a : ins-silaw processes could have un: - . , ; rompe-started the 311t the “benchrrrarkíng we TGTDW it; td- Sa@ and for timi: : teaser@ me to- tlreã ñinisiona1 : Edit fi a : ímígíeríuíegcít ' * s_ . > gears, , : empflogees at @FE-agnes restaurants Been `_4 'i V drim-through; the front' . importer managers ãí : Em ations. . Moreoyeg all restaurant managers : are txàékínípéeü-àsíf-àeüzíés fêíêfümàü@ ? heat . _ : fions immediately as fo' this taste restaurants ZEIQW“HE a mga 235t@ register; sptem: called. , that: Built-Jin: internal the jig entered. ? amtil; it is H: messages; for íãíñtíí the @rive- rants arse: a: separate@ tirrrer to. : rrácítühízgtnãsw times , *unta - ? asis : m wei* . franchised gitugyan@ gatad, program &immigrant; the naíiàií, , fíttwu th. : I gs, (v`7,`}' @ãíñüãí ãíl Rights
  16. 16. KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN KFC rests on the rigorousness of the OFR and QSC programs to continually assess the quality of both service processes and outcomes. These measurements are further used to improve the underlying processes for achieving better overall performance. KFC strives to change its detailed specifica- tions as the needs of the marketplace evolve and industry practices change. As confirmed by its experience with the DTW speed-of-service test, the notions of pro- cess focus and continuous improvement through empowering its employees are the foundations of the ongoing quality man- agement program at Kentucky Fried Chicken. References Apte, U. M. ; Karmarkar, U. S. ; and Pitbladdo, R. 1994, "Quality management in services: Analysis and applications, " working paper 94-09-01, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas, forth- coming in Practice of Quality Management, eds. U. Karmarkar and P. Lederer, Harvard Business School Press, Cambridge, Massachu- setts. Shingo, Shigeo 1987, The Sayings of Shigeo Shiiigo: Key Strategies for Plant Improvement, translated by A. P. Dillon, Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Shingo, Shigeo 1988a, Non-Stock Production: The Shiiigo System for Continuous Improve- ment, Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massa- chusetts. Shingo, Shigeo 1988b, The SMED System, video, translated by A. P. Dillon, Productivity Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Starlette Johnson, Finance Director, KFC, writes, "The drive-through-window (DTW) test in Oklahoma City served as the foundation for the company's current 60-second drive-through service time goal established in 1992. "By focusing the OKC team on improv- May-June 1995 ing speed of service at the critical drive- through point of sale, this team was able not only improve customer service but also to improve the financial position of the units involved. Transactions increased al- most 30 percent in these stores versus three percent in the rest of the market and sales outpaced the nontest markets by over 17 percent all while reducing window ser- vice time from over 120 seconds to 60 sec- onds-clearly a win for both the consum- ers and the company. "ln addition to being the model for the company's current drive-through service time standard, this process has also been adopted in over 1,300 of our franchised restaurants as well. " 21 Copyright © 2001 AII Rights Reserved