Institute Dining Review
Interim Report
December 17, 1996
Table of Contents
- Members
- Food Service Working Group Members
- Advisory Board Members
- Purpose and Background
- Purpose
- History
- Scope Statement
- Roles of the Members of the Institute Dining Review
- Working Group
- Advisory Board
- Community Involvement Group
- Project Description
- General Description
- First Phase -- Information Gathering
- Second Phase -- Designing a New Food Service Framework
- Third Phase -- Preparing for Implementation
- Tentative Schedule
- Status Report
- Interviews and Meetings
- Documents and Surveys Reviewed
- Best Practices Research and Site Visits
- Open Meetings
- Focus Groups
- Results to Date
- Appendix
1. Members
Food Service Working Group Members
- Joseph J. Bambenek, Graduate Student (Summer Member)
- Professor Munther A. Dahleh, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science (Member)
- Andrew M. Eisenmann, Associate Dean, Residence and Campus Activities
(Member)
- John S. Hollywood, Graduate Student (Member)
- Lawrence E. Maguire, Director, Housing and Food Services (Member)
- Michael K. Owu, Planning Officer, Planning Office (Member)
- Nanette A. Robicheau, Assistant Planning Officer, Planning Office (Staff)
- Jeremy D. Sher, Undergraduate Student (Member)
- Phillip J. Walsh, Director, Campus Activities Complex (Chair)
Advisory Board Members
- Margaret Bates, Dean for Student Life, UESA
- Peter Cummings, Business Manager, Campus Activities Complex
- Michele deMarco, Representative, Undergraduate Association
- Professor Jean de Monchaux, Chair, Student Affairs Committee
- Tracy Desovich, Health Educator for Students, Medical Department
- Maria Ehsan, Vice President, Graduate Student Council
- Gayle Fitzgerald, Director, Conference Services, Events, and Information
Center
- Thomas Henneberry, Director, Insurance and Legal Affairs
- Margaret Jablonski, Associate Dean, Residence and Campus Activities
- Milena Levak, Associate Dean, International Students Office
- Adam London, Student Worker, Baker Dining
- Sandra Sandoval, Representative, Undergraduate Association
- Robert Simha, Director of Planning
- Professor William Watson, Housemaster, Baker House
Appointments to be made: Minority Community representative, Graduate
Student Council representative, Dormitory Council representative, IFC representative,
Faculty representative, Support Staff representative, Service Staff representative.
Return to Table of Contents
2. Purpose and Background
Purpose
Purpose: To develop a framework for all aspects of campus dining
that will satisfy the needs and desires of the MIT Community.
Definition of framework: A general description of what dining
should look like at MIT. It describes "big-picture" facets of
a dining system, to include issues such as whether we should have a single
contractor, multiple contractors, or another system for providers; what
sorts of residential dining programs should be supported; how the complete
dining system should be financed; etc.
History
The Institute Dining Review results largely from the work of the 1995-96
Committee on Student Affairs, which recommended the formation of a dining
review group in its February 1996 report "Initial Report on Housing
and Food Services at MIT." The report recommended the creation of
a Food Service Working Group and an Advisory Board to oversee the group.
The report also listed a series of objectives for the dining program, including
(1) fostering citizenship development, (2) keeping the cost of on-campus
food low, (3) providing nutritious food, (4) providing quick and convenient
sources of food, and (5) providing opportunities for students to socialize
and build a sense of community.
After the report was distributed, the Committee had a series of conversations
with Dean for Undergraduate Education Rosalind Williams and Senior Vice
President William Dickson. As a result of these conversations, a Food Service
Working Group was formed using the Committee's recommendations as a guide,
and began meeting in June.
Scope Statement
Based on the work of the Committee on Student Affairs, the Dining Review
Working Group wrote the Review's scope statement over the summer of 1996.
This Statement is a formal description of what the Institute Dining Review
is to achieve. It describes the purpose of the Dining Review, the deliverables
of the project (tangible items the Review will produce -- in particular,
a new framework for campus dining), and the objectives the Review's deliverables
are to meet.
Justification
The purpose of this Institute Dining Review is to develop a new framework
for campus-wide dining that will satisfy the needs and desires of the MIT
Community.
This project will achieve its results by:
- Conducting a detailed analysis of the current food service situation
at MIT, and of the requirements for a sucessfull MIT food service.
- Developing and considering a variety of food service models for MIT.
- Engaging the MIT Community throughout the process to determine what
its needs are, and which food service models it prefers.
Deliverables
The major deliverables of the project are:
- An interim report that includes the following: (1) The current state
of MIT food service and justifications for the current model. (2) The requirements
and "desirables" of MIT food service. (3) Information about any
food service models discovered by the committee to date. (4) A plan to
involve the MIT Community in making decisions about the future of MIT food
service.
- Metrics that will determine how well the new food service model is
meeting the objectives listed below.
- A formal statement relating campus dining to the educational mission
of MIT.
- A final report that includes the points above plus an implementation
plan for a new model of food service that meets the objectives listed below.
- A "Request for Proposals" (RFP) that meets the requirements
of the new food service model described in the Final Report. (RFPs are
formal guidelines for would-be MIT food service providers.)
- After-action reports that include measures of community satisfaction
with both the new food service model and the process by which the model
was determined.
Objectives
The project's objectives are to develop a food service model that:
- Meets the educational and community-building requirements of dining
as determined by the Working Group.
- Encourages student responsibility, participation, and the development
of citizenship skills.
- Provides a variety of good, tasty, and nutritious food at reasonable
prices.
- Is convenient to the MIT Community in terms of hours of operation and
location.
- Will keep house dining rooms open.
- Will convert areas around the Institute into comfortable places where
the MIT Community can gather to eat lunch (and other meals).
- Will not lose money.
- Will satisfy at least 75% of the MIT Community by July 1, 1998.
In addition, the project seeks to use a process to develop the new food
service model that will satisfy at least 75% of those who participated
in it.
Return to Table of Contents
3. Roles of the Members of the Institute Dining Review
The Working Group
The Working Group shall be made up of appointees of the Committee on
Student Affairs, the Dean for Undergraduate Education and Student Affairs,
and the Senior Vice President for Operations. As such, the members shall
serve as arbiters seeking to help the community develop a food service
model that will serve the needs of the entire community; they shall not
act as representatives for a particular interest. The Group should meet
at least once per week.
Members of the Working Group shall be responsible for doing most of
the procedural work of the Institute Dining Review. This will include:
- Organizing and managing the work of the Advisory Board and the Community
Involvement Group.
- Ensuring that the Review receives a sufficient level of information
on what the Community wants and needs in its dining services. To do this,
the Group will organize open meetings, focus groups, and interviews and
with people and groups that have an interest in campus dining.
- Conducting "Best Practices Research" to get ideas from other
schools, companies, and associations on how to improve MIT dining.
- Compiling the information the Review receives into lists of community
needs and ideas that can be used to formulate new models of campus dining.
- Formulating new models (and parts of models) that will meet the community's
needs.
- Organizing a process by which the Community will select a new model
for campus dining. To do this, the Group will find ways to present options
and analyses to the community and ways to compile the responses it receives
from the community into a coherent model.
- Formalize the new model for campus dining, and get final approval for
it from the MIT Community.
The Advisory Board
The membership of the board shall be made up of representatives listed
by the Committee on Student Affairs plus any other representatives the
Working Group finds useful.
Members of the Advisory Board will serve as "experts" to the
Institute Dining Review. Further, they will link to "key agencies"
in the MIT Community that have an interest in campus dining. They will
receive regular updates from the Working Group which will include:
- Discussions of our overall project plan and the methods we intend to
use to seek information from the MIT Community.
- A high-level overview of the information we receive concerning the
current status of institutional dining, both here and at other schools
and companies.
- Summaries of the information we receive from the MIT Community, and
the resulting analyses.
The Advisory Board will then advise the Working Group on ways to carry
out the goals of the Institute Dining Review. In particular, the Board
should:
- Advise on the methodology used to involve the MIT Community and analyze
the information we receive from it.
- Advise the Working Group on which people and groups to hold interviews
with.
- Generate ideas that can be used to help build a new model of campus
dining at MIT, and analyze the ideas generated.
- Assist the Working Group in devising a new model of campus dining.
- Have its members act as liaisons to the groups they represent to ensure
communication between key MIT groups and the Institute Dining Review.
The Review expects that Board members will provide regular updates to
the groups they represent.
Community Involvement Group
The Community Involvement Group (CIG) will be open to any member of
the MIT Community interested in serving on it. The Dining Review will make
an effort to recruit students, faculty, and staff to the CIG. The CIG should
meet every 3-4 weeks and will attend several brief training sessions.
The CIG will serve as the primary liaison between the MIT Community
at large and the Institute Dining Review. Its duties will include the following:
- Act as an informal advisory board to the Working Group. Like the official
Advisory Board, the group will comment on the methods used to involve the
MIT Community and the methods used to analyze the information we receive.
- Serve as facilitators and interviewers for the needs assessment efforts
of the Dining Review.
- Assist with the work of compiling the information received.
- Act as liaisons between the Dining Review and the MIT Community during
the design phase.
During this phase, we expect that CIG members will provide their colleagues
with regular updates on the work of the Review, and that CIG members will
provide the Review with timely and accurate summaries of their colleagues
opinions.
Return to Table of Contents
4. Project Description
General Description
The Institute Dining Review will have three distinct phases.
The first phase, to be held over the summer and the beginning of the
fall term, will determine the needs and wants of the MIT Community concerning
a new dining framework. The second phase, which will occur during the remainder
of the fall term, will have the MIT Community design a new dining system.
The third phase, which will take place during IAP and the beginning of
the Spring term, will see the "detailed" implementation of the
new system.
First Phase
During the first phase, the Working Group and the Advisory Board will:
- Study the current dining situation at MIT.
- Study the results of previous efforts to improve campus dining.
- Contact members of the MIT Community to find out what the Community
wants in its campus dining service.
- From parts 1 to 3, compile the information we learn into a matrix of
requirements.
- Collect ideas that the MIT Community might want to use in designing
a new food service framework.
The Review will use a variety of methods to get community input on its
needs and wants, including interviews, public forums, surveys, and focus
groups. The Review will rely largely on an initial round of open meetings
and the focus groups to identify the community's dining needs. It will
use surveys to get quantitative data on dining patterns and expenditure,
and may use surveys to confirm needs raised by the open meetings and focus
groups.
In addition, the Review will conduct Best Practices Research to get
ideas on how to improve campus dining from other colleges, companies, institutions,
and associations. This research will include web searches, conducting questionnaires,
interviewing professionals in the food industry, and visiting certain schools
and organizations.
Second Phase
During the second phase, the Food Service Working Group, the Advisory
Board, and the MIT Community at large will design a new food service framework.
To this end, the Group will:
- Provide the MIT Community with the information necessary to design
a new food service framework.
- Provide the Community with means to participate in developing the framework.
The particular technique used will be exponential communication (XC).
- Collate the opinions of the community into a single model, if possible,
and write the model into a formal proposal.
Exponential communication is a technique which will allow the
thousands of members of the MIT Community at large to work with the rest
of the Review to design a new system (food service in our case). Here is
a brief outline of the technique:
- The Review will recruit and train a Community Involvement Group (CIG).
It will educate the MIT Community at large about the Dining Review, the
CIG, and the identities of their "assigned" CIG member.
- The Food Service Working Group provides the members of the CIG with
regular updates on ideas (towards the beginning of the design phase) and
more concrete proposals (towards the end).
- The CIG members forward these updates to groups of constituents determined
by the CIG and the rest of the Review. (They may do so through e-mail,
posters, meetings, etc.) The constituents send their opinions to their
assigned CIG member.
- The CIG members compile the comments they receive, and send the opinion
summaries to the Working Group. Working Group staff then compile the CIG's
opinion summaries into a single summary of campus opinion.
During the design phase, steps 2-4 will be repeated as frequently as
appropriate.
Third Phase
During this phase, the Review will oversee the development of RFPs and
other appropriate contractual changes.
Discussion of this phase will be postponed for now.
Tentative Schedule
|
Best Practice Research |
June-January 1996 |
|
Interviews & Presentations |
July-November 1996 |
|
Open Meetings |
September-October 1996 |
|
Focus Groups |
October-November 1996 |
|
Site Visits |
October-January 1996 |
|
Interim Report |
December 1996 |
|
Develop New Framework |
December 1996-February 1997 |
|
Review New Framework with Community |
February-March 1997 |
|
Develop Requests for Proposals, etc. |
February-March 1997 |
|
Final Report |
April 1997 |
Return to Table of Contents
5. Status Report
Interviews and Meetings
Over the past semester, the Working Group has interviewed the following
people:
- Professor Lawrence Bacow, Chair of the Faculty
- Margaret Bates, Dean for Student Life
- Isaac Colbert, Senior Associate Dean in Graduate Education Office
- Beth Emery, General Manager, ARAMARK
- Dave Daniels, Operations Manager, ARAMARK
- Stanley G. Hudson, Director of Student Financial Aid
- Professor John G. Kassakian, Director, LEES
- John T. McNeill, former Associate Director of Food Services
- Travis R. Merritt, former Dean for Undergraduate Academic Affairs
- Robert Randolph, Senior Associate Dean, UESA
- Robert Simha, Director of Planning
- Professor Charles Stewart, III, McCormick Housemaster
- Professor William B. Watson, Baker Housemaster
- Committee on Student Affairs
- Housemasters
- Task Force on Student Life and Learning
- Undergraduate Association
Documents and Surveys Reviewed
Over the past semester, the Working Group has reviewed the following
documents on the current status of dining at MIT and the results of past
efforts to improve campus dining:
- Contract Specifications for Manual Food Service (1991-1996, Housing
and Food Services / ARAMARK)
- Initial Report on Housing and Food Services at MIT (1996, Committee
on Student Affairs)
- McCormick Dining Hall Survey (1996)
- MIT Food Service Five-Year Plan (1996, ARAMARK)
- MIT Student Life Survey (1995, UA Student Life Committee/Committee
on Student Affairs)
- Report of the Committee on Campus Dining (1979, Kassakian)
- Report of the Committee on Educational Survey (1949, Lewis)
- Report of the Committee on Student Housing (1953, Ryer)
- Report of the Food Service Committee (1995, Dilley)
- Report of the House Dining Committee (1992, Watson)
- Survey of Enrolled Undergraduates (1996)
- Various financial documents concerning dining at MIT
Best Practice Research and Site Visits
The Dining Review plans to contact the following schools and organizations
as part of its Best Practice Research. In addition, members of the Working
Group will visit the indicated sites.
- Boston College (site visit)
- California Institute of Technology
- Columbia University
- Cornell University (site visit)
- Dartmouth College
- Duke University
- Georgia Institute of Technology
- Harvard University (site visit)
- Johns Hopkins University
- Johnson and Wales University (culinary arts - site visit)
- Northwestern University
- Rice University Stanford University
- University of North Carolina
- University of Pennsylvania
- University of Rochester
- University of Virginia
- Yale University
- National Association of College and University Food Services 1996 Conference
(site visit)
Open Meetings
We have conducted open meetings at all of the following residences and
dining halls:
- McCormick Hall
- Burton-Conner Houses
- Baker House
- Senior House
- East Campus Houses
- New West Campus Houses
- MacGregor House
- Next House
- Random Hall
- Bexley Hall
- Ashdown House and Green Hall
- Westgate
- Tang
- Eastgate
- Edgerton House
- Phi Sigma Kappa
- Alpha Phi
- pika
- Alpha Tau Omega
- Lobdell
- Sloan / Refresher Course
- Walker / Morss Hall
Focus Group Process
- The Review devised focus group questions and procedures.
- We conducted a training session for focus group facilitators led by
Professor Drazen Prelec of the Sloan School.
- We planned Focus Group Sessions:
|
Faculty |
2 |
|
Alumni/ae |
3 |
|
Staff |
2 |
|
ILGs |
2 |
|
Students (grads and undergrads) |
10 |
- Participants were randomly generated
- The focus groups were conducted during November and December; we may
hold some additional focus groups in January as well.
- A description of focus group procedures and focus group questions is
provided in the Appendix.
Return to Table of Contents
6. Results to Date
Return to Table of Contents
7. Appendix
The following documents are available upon request from the Institute
Dining Review Working Group.
- Description of focus group process
- Focus group questions
- Survey on dining habits, health issues, and nutrition issues
Return to Table of Contents
Return
to the Institute Dining Review Home Page.
Institute Dining Review / fswg@mit.edu
Last Revised 2/1/97