A comprehensive synopsis of the user research and UX processes applied to create emaginePOS's "Beyond Table Layout" solution. Further, it details the next steps required to see the solution realized as an extension to the emaginePOS system.

1. DESIGN & TEST PLAN
SELF-SERVICE SOLUTION FOR BEYOND TABLE LAYOUT
KEY RESULTS:
1. In our test, 80% of patrons, or 8 out 10,
would choose the self-service kiosks over
traditional restaurant service.
2. On average, the time on task for patrons
using our mockup was 500% faster than
patrons who chose to have their orders
managed by traditional restaurant service.
table of contents
Created on Aug. 20, 2014:
Charlie Collick
Tasha Pruess
AJ Polanco
client:
plan - pg.1 design - pg.7 data - pg.9 conclusion - pg.12

2. design hypotheses:
Hypothesis #1:
Given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service**
Hypothesis #2:
Patrons who use self-service kiosks will have their orders sent to the cooking staff 50% faster than
those who choose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service**
Hypothesis #3:
Using traditional POS table layouts is 50% less efficient than tracking customer locations.***
why these hypotheses are valuable to the restaurant staff:
Assuming that the time an order is sent to the cooking staff is directly related to the time that an
order is completed, Patrons who use the self-service kiosk will be able to have their food served
quicker than those that use traditional restaurant service.
One frequent problem that we identified was how quick service establishments deal with “free
floating” customers. Many bars and restaurants cater to individuals that are not seated in a fixed
space, but rather are encouraged to“float”in a open social space. Locating these customers when
their order is complete tends to be a problem for
establishments that allow it.
While conducting our field study, we found that
there was not a one size fits all solution to this
problem, but rather each business finds its own
solution. These solutions are usually clunky and
do not rely on technology. We feel our model
for tracking patrons by the individual rather than
space will allow for quicker, more efficient service
for both“floating patrons”as well as your traditional
customer.
plan - 01

3. why these hypotheses are valuable to patrons:
If 50% of patrons choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service, then that logically
supports the argument that the general manager of the restaurant can operate his / her
establishment with 50% less waitstaff.
For Example: If we assume that X restaurant has 10 employees on its wait staff at any given
time, the GM will only need to pay 5 employee salaries vs 10 salaries. This potential cost
savings is tremendous, especially if we make the assumption that the self-service kiosks
will only result in a one-time purchase & installation cost.
relevant concepts that our tests do not address:
Expediting checkout processes will result in a decrease in wait time for new arrivals. As a result,
we believe that walk-aways at the door will decrease by at least 25%.
** Traditional restaurant service is defined here as entering an establishment, being seated, and
completing order with a member of the waitstaff. We will determine the average amount of
time it takes by observing this process at a mix of establishments.
*** Although we were able to conduct field research to determine that there is in fact a need for
individual based tracking, we were not able to develop a test to prove its efficacy due to lack
of time and resources.
plan - 02

4. plan - 03
design test’s feature set:
Will include:
• Hard fixed table layouts
• Ability to track the individual patron
• Quick compile/split function for easy payment
• “Token”hardware for each unique visitor
• Customer facing ordering screen (Kiosks)
• Color-coding for customer status (waiting, order placed, waiting for check, etc.)
• Top down view of establishment and each section
Will not include:
• Mobile payment options
• mobile ordering app
• menu organization
prototype: explanation and justification
Our prototype will be a “works-like” prototype, because our main intention is to test usability vs
aesthetics (i.e.“looks-like”).
The prototype will be a touch pad interface that customers can use to directly place orders to the
bar or kitchen. It will work in a similar fashion to other customer order applications. A patron will
enter the establishment and immediately approach an order kiosk, place their initial and pay. Once
the transaction is complete, the customers are given a token and/or directed to their table. The
actual prototype will be built out as a clickable PDF in Balsamiq.
We will build out several paths with the prototype to allow the patron to get a good feel for how
the application will function. We will not only collect quantitative data for the timed tests, we want
to also gain insight into the experience through the words of the patron.

5. plan - 04
prototype: level of fidelity + level of detail
Mid Fidelity
Our prototype will be a low fidelity mock up in the sense that the styling, coloring, and layout
will be chosen later, but the fidelity to the experience of walking through an order process with
a touch pad rather than a waiter will be high fidelity (in a restaurant setting, working with touch
pad not PC, maybe mount the iPad? I would also say that our actual navigation of the application
will be high fidelity as well because we want to create an experience for the patron that will
come as close to the real thing as possible
Detail
The detail will be enough to test the efficacy of the functions and task paths but things like color,
layout, font and such may not be included in prototype.
prototype: size, in terms of screens
Hypothesis #1 & 2 - Patron Perspective:
Screen 1: Intro screen
Screen 2: Select Your Drink
Screen 3: Select Your Entree
Screen 4: Select Your Dessert
Screen 5: Review Your Order
Screen 6: Check-out Screen
Hypothesis #3 test (servers perspective):
Screen 7-15: Top down view of establishment with hard fixed booths, tables, and stools. Each
customer is identified by a “token” which appears on the screen. When an individual customer is
selected (by token number or order number), this patron appears on the screen wherever they
might be in the restaurant. This mockup would be used to test the efficiency of our system for
getting orders out to “floating” patrons, compared to the current mechanism the establishments
wetestourcurrentlyusing.Formoredescriptionofthecurrentsystemsbeingused,seeattachment
“floating patron service description”.

6. plan - 05
test method
Hypothesis #1 & 2
We will use the UX research method Usability Study to directly observe how people use self-
service kiosks to order their meals at restaurants. This method will allow us to ask questions, probe
on their behavior and allow the participants to think out loud, so they can share additional insights
as they are using the tool. Candid feedback is always helpful and often sheds light on issues that
we would never consider. We will also ask each participant to fill out a post study survey to share
demographic information and any other insights about the individual tracking tool.
Hypothesis #3
We will use the UX research method Usability Study to directly observe how people use self-
service kiosks to order their meals at restaurants. This method will allow us to ask questions, probe
on their behavior and allow the participants to think out loud, so they can share additional insights
as they are using the tool. Candid feedback is always helpful and often sheds light on issues that
we would never consider. We will also ask each participant to fill out a post study survey to share
demographic information and any other insights about the individual tracking tool.
With more time and resources, we would have set up scenarios in which we could control variables
such as # of patrons, servers on duty, the locations of the“floater”patrons, etc. We then would have
tested the establishment’s current system for serving these patrons vs. our system for serving the
patrons. We would have tested the servers based on time on task, as well as accuracy (delivering
the right order to the right patron).
qualitative study
We chose to perform a Usability Study; i.e. we want to observe our test participants using self-
service ordering kiosk. This test method is inherently qualitative because we are gathering the
data directly from our test participants.

7. plan - 06
test conduct / procedure
We will conduct our test using 5 test participants in bars and restaurants in New Brunswick and
Baltimore’s Camden Yards area. We will ask our test participants to answer one question and then
put them through a series of tasks:
Question: We will ask our patrons the following question: When you go to a restaurant, what
would you prefer when it comes to ordering your meal: to use a self-service kiosk where you
can place your order when you arrive or wait to be seated by a hostess and place your order
with your waiter/waitress?
Scenario: We will ask our test participants to use the self-service kiosk to order a meal. It is
through this scenario that will ask them to do a set of tasks. As they perform each task, we will
ask them questions and request that they think out loud to share feedback & insights.
measuring the results
We will use the performance metrics, task success, time on task and efficiency. Task success will
measure how effectively test participant are able to complete a set of tasks that we will define.
Time on task will measure the amount of time spent on a task, which is important for tasks that
are performed repeatedly. And finally, efficiency will measure the number of discrete actions
carried out to complete a task.
We expect the results of our usability study including our performance metrics to validate our
hypotheses: that if given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional
restaurant service; and that patrons who use self-service kiosks will receive their order 50% faster
than those who choose traditional restaurant service.

8. design - 07
design process
We began our design process with a design studio activity that asked us to sketch the different
screens for the patron ordering screen (results below).
Screen 1: Intro screen Screen 2: Select Your Drink Screen 3: Select Your Entree
prototype screens, for hypothesis #1-2 (Client Perspective)

9. Screen 7-15:
Top down view of establishment with hard fixed booths, tables,
and stools. Each customer is identified by a “token”which appears
on the screen. When an individual customer is selected (by token
number or order number), this patron appears on the screen
wherever they might be in the restaurant.
This mockup would be used to test the efficiency of our system for
getting orders out to “floating” patrons, compared to the current
mechanism the establishments we test our currently using. For
moredescriptionofthecurrentsystemsbeingused,seeattachment
“floating patron service description”.
design - 08
Screen 4: Select Your Drink Screen 5: Order Summary Screen 6: Check-out Screen
prototype screens, for hypothesis #1-2 (cont’d)
prototype screens, for hypothesis #3 (Patron Perspective)

10. data - 09
test data
Time it takes for patrons to place order using traditional restaurant service.
Restaurant Door to Host
(seconds)
Host to Table
(seconds)
Table before
Waiter (sec)
Water to Order
Completion (s)
Total Wait
(seconds)
Total Wait
(minutes)
Olive Branch 35 20 240 60 355 5.917
Old Man
Raffertys
55 45 320 95 515 8.583
Harvest Moon 40 25 140 480 685 11.417
Brother
Jimmys
20 20 190 75 305 5.083
World of Beer 0 35 310 50 395 6.583
Average 30 29 240 760 451 7.517
“Would you prefer a self-service kiosk over traditional restaurant service?”
User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 User 7 User 8 User 9 User 10 Total
Yes X X X X X X X X 8
No X X 2
Self-service Kiosk - Time on Task (in seconds)
User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 User 7 User 8 User 9 User 10
Average
(seconds)
Average
(minutes)
61 74 124 54 144 71 80 63 109 111 89.1 1.485

11. data - 10
sample dining experience
Tuesday August 5, 2014
• The restaurant is a sports bar with multiple dining areas, including one for outside dining.
• My friend & I went into a restaurant, told the hostess dinner for 2, and were seated immediately.
• We were seated at 6:31pm.
• The waiter came by with water at 6:33pm.
• It took us 9 minutes to figure out our order.
• At 6:44pm, we ordered an appetizer and two entrees.
• At 6:57pm, our appetizer arrived.
• At 7:18pm, our entrees arrived.
• We asked and received the check at 7:44pm and paid shortly thereafter.
• We walked out of the restaurant at 7:51pm.
test results
Hypothesis #1
We created a first design of self-service kiosk ordering application and tested it with 10 partons.
Our first hypothesis was: given the choice 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over
traditional restaurant service. In our test, 80% of patrons, or 8 out 10, would choose the self-
service kiosks over traditional restaurant service.
Hypothesis #2
Our second hypothesis was:“Patrons who use self-service kiosks will have their orders sent to
the cooking staff 50% faster than those who choose to have their orders managed by traditional
restaurant service.”Surprisingly, our prediction was VASTLY exceeded. On average, the time on
task for patrons using our mockup was ~500% faster than patrons who chose to have
their orders managed by traditional restaurant service.

12. data - 11
test results (cont’d)
Hypothesis #3
We wanted to test the server side of our system, but first we needed to find out how restaurants
currently deal with“floating”patrons.
To that end, we went into 4 quick service establishments that cater to free roaming patrons.
Although all of these establishments offer traditional sit-down, waiter service, a good portion
of their clientele order food/drinks directly from a bartender. The following are descriptions we
received from restaurant servers on they get orders to the correct patrons:
Olive Branch - Bartenders act as both order contact point as well as food runner. Patrons
approach a bartender to place an order. Once the food/drink is prepared, the kitchen signals
the bartenders (may not be the bartender who originally took the order) by ringing a bell. Once
food is picked up from the kitchen, the server will try and locate the patron by pure memory of
who placed the order. Since this establishment has no set tables and the allow patrons to freely
move about the room, there isn’t any available means of tracking the order to patrons and they
must rely on putting an order to a face.
Freddies -This is a bar/restaurant that 80% of their patrons choose to sit at the bar or booth.The
other 20% order drinks/food and stand in common areas that include wall mounted counters,
free standing cocktail tables, etc. Orders are placed at the bar and when the order is ready, the
server/bartender yells out a order number and patrons come to the bar to pick up their order
before returning to the common area. Problems with this design include, wrong order pickup,
not“finding”the patron (noisy bar), and patrons not knowing their order number.
Harvest Moon - Orders for non seated customers are placed at the bar. Because the patrons in
the common space are not seated and lack dedicated tablespace, Harvest moon only allows
full service ordering to those seated at a table or at a bar stool. Without a table you are only
allowed to order drinks and appetizers, which are then picked up directly from the bar.
Old Bay - Orders for non seated patrons are taken directly by the bartenders. During the order
the bartender asks said patron where they will be seated. The food runner locates that patron
in the aforementioned area, which seemingly causes issues with patrons not being where they
said they were going to be.

13. conclusion - 12
final thoughts
Based on our findings for hypothesis #1 and #2, we determined that there is significant interest on
the part of the patron to have some sort of system that allows the patron to directly put in an order
themselves. 8/10 patrons told us that they would be interested in trying out our system if they were
given the choice of using a traditional server or ordering from a kiosk inside the establishment. We
also confirmed that using a patron facing order system is in fact quicker to get their order to the
kitchen/bar than traditional restaurant service.
recommendations for future testing
We would like to further vet our hypotheses by setting up more detailed tests that would
account for the following variables that were out of our control:
• patron age,
• time of day
• location desirability
• type of establishment (bar/restaurant)
• “type of experience the patron is looking for”
Unfortunately we were not able to actually test hypothesis #3 because of the amount of
variables we would not be able to account for. These variables include:
1. Inconsistency in how restaurants deal with getting orders out to floating patrons.
2. The size of a space (large vs small floor plan)
3. The use of out-of-date / legacy systems
4. Number of patrons per party
Based on the descriptions of how these establishments currently deal with orders from non-
seated patrons, and the accounts provided by servers in these establishments, we feel that our
system of tracking the customer has validity and would be an attractive feature to your clients.
With additional time and resources, we could develop more structured tests to prove this.