1. JMU Special Events Catering Performance Improvement Proposal
LTLE 380
Spring 2015
Emily Brodzinski, Chelsea Dunkle, Aileen O’Hearn, Madeleine Sandridge,
Ashley Wilhelm
2. 2
Table of Contents
OrganizationalAnalysis ………………………….…………..3
Background…………………………………….………..3
Mission and Vision Statements ……………..………..3
OrganizationalChart ………………….……….………..4
Job Descriptions ……………………….………………..5
Systems Analysis …………………….………………….7
SWOT Analysis …………………….……………………..9
PerformanceDiagnosis Matrix ………………………..10
Process Analysis ……………………………………………….12
Task Analysis ……………………………………………………13
Task Inventory …………………………………………………..14
Data Collection …………………………………………………..14
Interview …………………………………………………… 14
SurveyResults …………………………………………….17
OriginalSurvey…………………………………………….23
Proposal …………………………………………………………… 25
Costs and Benefits ……………………………………………….25
References ………………………………………………………… 26
3. 3
Organizational Analysis
Background
In July 2001, JMU Dining signed a contract with Aramark as opposed the
university’s former provider, Sodexho Marriott. JMU has been using Aramark as its food
provider ever since then. SPEV (Special Events Catering) had already existed for quite
some time. Catering operations moved to Chandler Hall in 1979, and then to its current
location, Festival in 2002 (Torisky, 2007).
SPEV essentially provides catering for events held by the university. Most of their
clients are JMU organizations, however, they can cater for clients outside of the school
occasionally, such as for various weddings during the summer.
Mission and Vision Statements
○ Aramark Mission Statement: “Our mission is to deliver experiences that
enrich and nourish Lives. From our food and facilities businesses to our
uniform and medical technology maintenance businesses, we deliver
experiences that enrich and nourish lives every day. As a company, we
have five focus areas: our consumers, our clients, our employees, our
shareholders and the communities in which we work and live.”
○ Aramark Vision: “Our vision is to focus on growth for our consumers and
clients with a combination of innovation and service to accelerate growth.”
Source: Our business purpose. (2015). Retrieved March 14, 2015 from
http://www.aramark.com/aboutaramark/businesspurpose/
8. 8
Figure 2
Aramark at JMU is comprised of DHall, EHall, various retail locations (ie. Top
Dog, Dukes), outside vendors (ie. Chick Fil A, Starbucks), as well as Special Events
Catering. Within SPEV are several areas including management, the sales team,
service staff, and kitchen staff. Our project primarily focuses on the service department
of SPEV.
9. 9
SWOT Analysis
Strengths
● Flexible scheduling; understanding of students’ workload
● Work with people your age
● Employees feel they have the tools and resources needed to do their jobs well
● Comprehensive food safety training
Weaknesses
● Inconsistency in carrying out policies
● Cliques among veteran workers
● Favoritism
● Poor communication between upper management and employees
● Complicated hiring process
● Poor morale among managers
Opportunities
● Opportunity to create straighter lines of communication
● Opportunity to promote inclusion among employees
● Opportunity to streamline their student hiring process
● Opportunity to stress the importance of consistent policies
Threats
● Other catering companies could take business
● Aramark could lose their contract with JMU
● Potential health code violations
10. 10
Performance Diagnosis Matrix
Organization
Level
Process Level Team Level Individual
Level
Mission/Goal Does the
organization
mission/goal fit
the reality of the
economic,
political, and
cultural forces?
Do the process
goals enable
the organization
to meet
organization
and individual
missions/goals?
Do the team
goals provide
congruence
with the process
and individual
goals?
Are the
professional
and personal
mission/goals of
individuals
congruent with
the
organization’s?
System Design Does the
organization
system provide
structure and
policies
supporting the
desired
performance?
Are processes
designed in
such a way to
work as a
system?
Do the team
dynamics
function in such
a way to
facilitate
collaboration
and
performance?
Does the
individual clear
obstacles that
impede his or
her job
performance?
Capacity Does the
organization
have the
leadership,
capital, and
infrastructure to
achieve its
mission/goals?
Does the
process have
the capacity to
perform
(quantity,
quality, and
timeliness)?
Does the team
have the
combined
capacity to
effectively and
efficiently meet
the
performance
goals?
Does the
individual have
the mental,
physical, and
emotional
capacity to
perform?
Motivation Do the policies,
culture, and
reward systems
support the
desired
performance?
Does the
process provide
the information
and human
factors required
to maintain it?
Does the team
function in a
respectful and
supportive
manner?
Does the
individual want
to perform no
matter what?
Expertise Does the
organization
establish and
maintain
selection and
training policies
and resources?
Does the
process of
developing
expertise meet
the changing
demands of
changing
processes?
Does the team
have the team
process
expertise to
perform?
Does the
individual have
the knowledge
and expertise to
perform?
11. 11
The Performance Diagnosis Matrix shows that the probable cause of our main
issue at SPEV occurs mainly in the team level of the chart. The mission/goal, system
design, capacity, and motivation performance variables in the team level are all
concerning issues. We also have issues across the individual level in mission/goal and
motivation and the organization level’s mission/goal.
Team Level Mission/Goal:
The team goals are not in congruence with the process and individual goals since there
are not shared goals among managers and employees.
Team Level System Design:
Currently, the team dynamics among servers is not as collaborative as it could be. It
was indicated in our survey that favoritism and cliques among veteran workers is an
issue.
Team Level Capacity:
Combined, the team does not have the capacity to meet performance goals since
16.67% of respondents felt that their job is too hectic and stressful at times.
Team Level Motivation:
The team does not always function in a respectful and supportive manner. Some
respondents expressed that some of the managers do not have positive attitudes and
there is little excitement overall. Our survey also indicates that 33.33% of respondents
do not feel rewarded for their efforts.
Organization Level Motivation:
The current policies do not support desired performance since there are policies like no
nail polish that are only enforced by certain managers and not by others. On top of this,
the culture and reward systems are lacking.
Individual Level Mission/Goal:
The personal missions and goals of employees are not in congruence with the
organization’s since the majority of SPEV’s servers are JMU students who may be
more concerned with making a few bucks as opposed to ‘delivering an experience.
Individual Level Motivation:
The individual does not necessarily want to perform no matter what. 8.33% said that
they are not satisfied with their jobs.
12. 12
Process Analysis
While collecting data on the service department of SPEV we found that the there
is an unpleasant work environment, inconsistent direction from management, and a lack
of communication from management. Our data pointed to a negative attitude among
workers and a “cliquey” environment, which caused a lack of motivation among
employees. There is also a general lack of positive attitude among managers and
employees, causing a lower morale among workers. According to our survey, servers at
SPEV do not feel supported at work; ⅓ of respondents did not feel rewarded for their
efforts.
While on the job, different managers chose to enforce different rules, which can
cause confusion among employees. Certain policies are not carried out by all managers
and employees aren’t always sure what to expect. Some managers also engage in
favoritism, which makes servers feel under valued. Servers feel as though there is an
unequal opportunity for rewards and benefits because of favoritism from management.
In our interview with the student managers, we found that they believed SPEV’s
greatest problem right now is communication. The student managers explained to us
that there have been issues with managers responding to servers’ emails in a timely
manner. This is something that they would like to improve quickly.
13. 13
Task Analysis
Pre-Service Setup
■ Clock in
■ Find name on event sheet and locate your manager
■ Read through set-up sheet provided by manager
■ Gather items listed on on set-up sheet (ie. 50 napkins, 50 forks,
etc) and place on a cart
■ Take items to event site
■ Set tables with tablecloths and all proper settings
■ Make backup drink AV’s
■ Set up bus station in back hallway
■ Place tray stands in the room
■ Get dressed in black and whites if necessary
■ Go to pre-service meeting held by manager-on-duty and find out
your assigned role
Service
■ Check on guests
■ Fill beverages when needed
■ Run food out if you were assigned this task
■ Remove plates and utensils after each course
■ Bring full trays back to bus and dish station
■ Offer coffee to each guest
■ Clear tables as fully as possible so that only the coffee cup, spoon,
and water are left on tables
■ Wait for instruction from manager to begin exiting event room
Post-Service Breakdown
■ Once guests have left, consolidate items on tables
■ Collect trash
■ Collect dirty dishes and utensils from tables
■ Collect centerpiece items
■ Clear out the bus and dish station
■ Run dirty dishes through the dish machine
■ Remove all trays and tray stands from event site
■ Remove all linen from event site
■ Break down drink station from back hallway
14. 14
Task Inventory
○ Timeclock
○ Set up sheet
○ Cart
○ Tables and chairs
○ Centerpieces
○ Linen
○ Forks, knives, other utensils
○ Glasses
○ Coffee cups and saucers
○ Trays and tray stands
○ Drink AV’s
○ Water
○ Ice tea
○ Coffee
○ Sugar
○ Creamer
○ Dish Machine
Data Collection
We surveyed student servers and interviewed student managers.
Interview Questions:
1. How long have you worked for SPEV? What are your duties?
Blake: I’ve been here for over two years, but have served as a Student Manager
for one year. As Student Managers, Kelsie and I have a variety of work including
answering student emails, some work with scheduling, paperwork, interviews, as
well as providing orientation to new employees.
Kelsie: I started in August 2013 and have also been a Student Manager for a
year. I spend most of my time in the Sales Office while Blake works in our
Service Office. We really do primarily office work but occasionally work events as
well.
2. What training do you provide? Do you feel that enough is provided?
15. 15
We have an Orientation Checklist that we go through with each of our new
employees which is something relatively new for us. As far as training goes, each
employee is required to complete three modules provided by Aramark’s Human
Resources Department. Each module addresses proper food safety handling.
There isn’t any training in place that is specific to catering since that would be
costly and we feel that we wouldn’t be able to cover every single aspect. We
think that enough training is provided.
3. What are some typical issues that you deal with when working with the student
employees?
We will occasionally hear complaints from students about a rough shift or that
they’re feeling overworked. A student might say that they don’t want to work with
another student and we can’t always accommodate for that but we try our best.
4. How would you describe the communication from upper management? (ie. is it
open, comfortable, any disconnect?)
There is sometimes a lack of response to emails and we think this is simply due
to the high volume of emails that managers receive. Some emails might get
overlooked so students are not always addressed.
5. What do you feel is one of the biggest challenges for SPEV right now?
One issue is the inconsistency in our policies as well as how they are enforced. It
really depends who you’re working with. One manager might allow their
employees to wear jewelry while another does not.
Another problem we’ve run into is the paperwork process for new hires. This is a
pretty complicated process for us since applications go through HR first before
we receive them. When HR sends us applications, we interview the candidates
and then send the paperwork back to HR to get references checked. After that,
the candidate may be hired. On top of this, we actually don’t interview incoming
freshman. This is something that HR does over the summer and we run into
problems because the freshman are not told catering’s football policy of having to
work every home football game with the exception of missing one. Usually we
see freshman quit because of this or they are employed through us but do not
work football games.
16. 16
6. What is your involvement with the hiring and selection process of student
employees?
The Student Managers are the ones who have the discretion for who gets hired.
7. How many student servers are typically hired each semester?
We try to have between 60 to 80 student servers during football season. We’ve
found that about half of our servers have been with us for at least a semester and
that we maybe hire 20 to 30 new servers each semester. There is pretty decent
turnover. We think that difficulty of major plays a role when someone decides to
leave. There also seems to be less retention during the Fall semester.
25. 25
Proposal
We propose that SPEV implement a form of team building and a recognition or
reward program each semester. Examples may include having a SPEV Olympics where
students meet outside of work one day and participate in fun contests related to SPEV,
such as cart wrapping, napkin folding, etc. Another idea is to have a recognition system
in place. Rather than having an “Employee of the Month”, there could be awards for
outstanding customer service each month to motivate students to perform better.
Additionally, SPEV could have ‘thank you’ dinners for their student servers to show
them appreciation.
Costs and Benefits
There are many benefits of team building in the workplace, including better and
more open communication. Team building significantly contributes toward employee
motivation and building trust among employees, thereby ensuring better productivity.
Managers will also benefit by being able to identify particular skills that may emerge
during team building activities. On top of this, team building promotes an inclusive
workplace, which will lower costs due to fewer turnovers.
Today there is a $46 billion market for employee recognition (gold watches, pins,
thank-you awards, plaques, etc.), and research shows that companies spend between
1-2% of payroll on such stuff (Bersin, 2012). Although there is a cost involved, reward
systems provide the “glue” for keeping the entire team model together. Rewards and
recognition can motivate team members to achieve their vision and can also enhance
relationships by encouraging cooperation and working toward common goals. Bersin &
Associates, a membership-based company empowering human resources, talent and
learning organizations to drive bottom-line impact through world-class research and
advisory services, today announced new research that shows companies with
recognition programs highly effective at improving employee engagement have 31
percent lower voluntary turnover than their peers with ineffective recognition programs
(Bersin & Associates, 2012).
So how much should a company spend on a recognition program? According to
Ron Cacioppe (1999), it was found that the budgeted cost of programs ranged from 0.3
percent to 1.5 percent of payroll, with 1 percent being typical. The size of the award may
vary significantly, but the average is close to the $100 range.
26. 26
References
Torisky, D. (2007, July 1). History of Dining Services at James Madison University.
Retrieved April 5, 2015, from http://www.lib.jmu.edu/special/jmuhistorical/JMUDining.pdf
Our business purpose. (2015). Retrieved March 14, 2015 from
http://www.aramark.com/aboutaramark/businesspurpose/
Bersin, J. (2012, June 13). New Research Unlocks the Secret of Employee Recognition.
Retrieved April 16, 2015, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/joshbersin/2012/06/13/new-
research-unlocks-the-secret-of-employee-recognition/
Bersin & Associates. (2012, June 12). Bersin & Associates Unlocks the Secrets of
Effective Employee Recognition. Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://www.bersin.com/News/Content.aspx?id=15543
Cacioppe, Ron. (1999). Using team – individual reward and recognition strategies to
drive organizational success. Leadership & Organization Development Journal. Vol. 20
Iss: 6, pp.322 - 331
