Cleanability of Equipment Should be a Factor in Your Purchasing Decisions by Foster Frable Jr.
Point/CounterPoint Discussion
Point: person 1
CounterPoint: Person 2
For Assignment Number 3, a debate on the article, “Cleanability of Equipment Should be a Factor in Your Purchasing Decisions” by Foster Frable Jr.
1: Why is it that whenever a new piece of equipment comes on the market, the media finds a way to justify buying it? Our materialism knows no boundaries, especially with our sense of reasoning. This article is no exception. Yes, technology is a positive advancement for the foodservice industry. Yes, it would improve sanitation by easing cleanability. But honestly, how realistic is it to assume that all restaurants, or even a sizeable percentage, will be able to successfully implement renovations in the near future? And how fair is it to assume that managers are not already concerned with cleanability and sanitation?
2: After reading the same article by Foster Frable, Jr., I have the following perspective. I feel that the cleanability of equipment, if not the most important factor, should definitely be ranked higher than it has been in the past when it comes to evaluating and purchasing of equipment. The article does not promote immediate replacement of existing equipment that is currently in production by restaurant owners. It does however make valid points about new technology that will help eliminate some of our cleanliness and sanitation problems in restaurants such as the cracks and crevasses where food will fall.
The newly manufactured equipment is constructed to bring new efficiency, durability, and easy-to-clean surfaces. Do you know that the United States Public Health Service identifies more than 40 diseases that can be transferred from improperly cooked food due to our restaurants sanitation practices. Restaurant patrons have to believe and trust us as owners and operators that we will provide wholesome cooked food free from harmful germs. This equipment and this new technology will help do that.
Also, it is our customers and patrons that drive new technology because there is a need. Americans are especially concerned about hygiene and cleanliness when dining at restaurants. However, they are trusting that the restaurant owners are properly handling the sanitation issues usually with the newest and best state-of-the-art equipment.
According to an article in Newsweek, October 2, 2000, even when Americans shop for their own food at the grocery stores they expect good cleaning and sanitation practices. They expect meat to be wrapped tightly in layers of styrofoam packaging. They also don’t expect to be eating a lot of chemicals that are sprayed on their food to make them cleaner. In recent years, our country’s interest in eating well has grown dramatically. The Food Channel and the proliferation of farmers markets have certainly helped make food a bigger part of our lives. Sitting down and sharing a clean, delicious, fresh meal is one of the basic ways that friends and families communicate with each other.
1: I agree that the article does raise some important issues about cleanability. The fact is, however, that managers and restaurant owners are concerned with these issues; but as managers of a business, they must place top priority on the bottom line. The initial cost of new equipment is so high that most operations simply cannot afford it. At three to four times the cost of older and just as functional models, are these “cleanable” features cost-effective? Are there any statistics or figures revealing just how much operations can save? Have there been studies as to the long-term depreciation of the newer models, or documentation on the negative aspects managers have encountered with using more cleanable equipment? Frable has not addressed these issues, nor have equipment suppliers – which leads this skeptic to believe that the bulk of the information gathered by the article’s author came directly from the vendors themselves (by the way, these vendors are the people Frable advises managers should not depend on for objectivity).
I also disagree with the fact that customers and patrons drive the changes because there is a need. The need has been gradually increasing for some time now, but it is the suppliers and manufacturers that put the wheels in motion. Why? Money. What is running through the vendor’s mind on this subject? Why are they selling these new products at three to four times the price of their old models? Why, if European models are so much better than their American counterparts (and have been for years), were the design changes not made sooner? Why can’t suppliers make attachments or add-on parts that improve old equipment through the same principles the new models embody? The reason may be in the bottom line.
2: In my opinion most managers and operators cannot affordnot to invest in new equipment every 5-10 years especially equipment with improvements regarding cleanability and sanitation procedures. In an article from Foodservice Equipment & Supplies Magazine, November 2000, Charnette Norton, R.D. Vice President of Romano-Gatlan in Missouri City,Texas states that when food-safety thinking changed in the 1990’s to emphasize HACCP for foodservice operators, it was the manufacturers of newer equipment that became much more responsive about providing solutions than the end-users need to work their way through the maze of HACCP and its guidelines. Today, operators of equipment are identifying some problems with older food-safety methods. As a result, operators are turning to their equipment and supply partners to help find solutions to their challenges.
Yes, costs are high for equipment replacement. However, much of the new kitchen equipment is planned and designed to reduce or eliminate some cooking skills. For example: hamburgers at McDonalds are placed on a conveyor unit and retrieved on the opposite end as a finished product. The same process is used for cooking pizzas. The groove-griddle also de-skills broiling. The constant temperature from upper and lower heat sources allow meats, etc. to be cooked without turning over. All these are controlled by timers and programmed by computers. With all these new innovations, keeping up with the demands of our customers can be met with less labor.
The time saved can be utilized in training programs for cleanliness and sanitation procedures that occur on a more daily basis. In order to obtain the maximum use of equipment, one must know to care for the equipment and establish a thorough maintenance schedule. Unskilled employees can be trained to handle more flexible tasks. With concerns growing over food safety and stronger enforcement of HACCP guidelines, the new equipment features could bring future solutions. For example: stainless steel that contains an additive that will kill bacteria on contact. This doesn’t eliminate the cleaning of the surfaces but helps in the control of contamination. Both restaurants and foodservice operations need to work together in the development and refinement of solutions to all these challenges to ensure that end users are guaranteed wholesome food.
Equipment should not be bought, leased, or replaced unless it improves the quality of food products, decreases the cost of labor, and increases the profitability of your operation. When you are deciding whether or not to buy a new “shiny” piece of equipment, operators need to pay attention to maintenance issues. Manufacturers promise to sell equipment that is expected to fulfill everything that is desired. However, manufacturers and sales people don’t always deliver what they say.
New equipment usually is more complex and needs a higher level of maintenance than older equipment. Old skilled managers and employees usually don’t have the skills necessary to maintain equipment. In order to get the most out of any piece of equipment, an operator must be willing to ensure proper disassembly and cleaning. All these problems can be solved through proper training and good procedures for maintenance. Equipment should usually perform for 10 years with proper maintenance and care. Budgets should allocate and at least be considering that replacement might be in order. Keeping up with technology should be mandatory.
1: I agree with many of the statements made. However, the only consideration that makes or breaks a decision to renovate is profitability. What if labor cost increases by $100,000, but net income rises by $1,000,000? McDonald’s probably has no regrets about the decisions it has made to increase the bottom line at the expense of food quality. McDonald’s decisions certainly do not apply to all foodservice operations, just as the new cleanable equipment does not benefit every establishment. Frable ignores this vital piece of data, relying on testimonials that may be biased.
In order for the industry as a whole to collectively brainstorm, revise, and improve upon innovations, we have to hear both the pros and cons of our options. We have to fully explore and analyze the implications of these innovations in all types of operations, not just the big names that make the headlines. It is my guess neither the manufacturers nor the vendors are willing to supply this information. The reason that culinary schools have this new equipment is because the suppliers donate them or sell them at a significant discount. Suppliers want culinary graduates to become familiar with their brand name and equipment models, rely on them, and look for them in future employment kitchens. The reason that major hotels, institutions, and other high-volume operations have it is because their kitchen layout and operational structure can accommodate the use of larger and more complex units of equipment.
2: In my opinion, I think that there is nothing wrong with good clean healthy competition among suppliers. If suppliers feel that they have a good piece of equipment that will promote good sanitation practices and ease of cleanability, along with other features, then of course, one of their target markets would and should be the future graduates in the culinary arts.
Frable notes in his article, “Rethinking old assumptions and rules about equipment and space” that the economic realities of our industry demand rethinking old rules and assumptions for space and equipment for both the front and back of the house. Space is a valuable commodity. Determining the size of a kitchen on the number of daily meals produced provides a realistic picture of space and equipment requirements. The all-in-one unit will save a tremendous amount of space along with its time saving cleanability.
Yes, both space and time are saved with many of these models. This is not the end of the story, however. Picture a small mom-and-pop restaurant, such as the Hummingbird Room, side by side with a large resort, such as the Greenbrier. Install a one-piece, 9-foot (minimum) long, custom designed Vulcan model with all of the features that each restaurant needs for production and service. Everything’s hunky-dory for the first few years (at least as far as operation is concerned). But one day, the gas leaks…or the electric supply is cut by a corroded wire…or a connecting line for one reason or another fails. The centralized set-up of gas, electric, etc. inside and underneath the unit makes it more likely than not that the smallest failure in one component will disable every other component of that unit – like a string of Christmas lights. For the Greenbrier, which has a vast quantity of other units and substitute components, this possibility is inconvenient but not critical. For the Hummingbird Room, with one unit containing nearly all of its equipment, this possibility would shut down operations until the unit was repaired. Or suppose that just one component malfunctions and needs repair. A central supply source demands that all other equipment in the unit be shut down during repair, immobilizing all other equipment use. The offending component cannot simply be removed from the unit and set aside. Clearly, then, all-in-one kitchen equipment models are not for everyone.
Besides repair, suppose that one component in the unit needs to be upgraded? Or even two or three… any amount less than all of the equipment? This is a common occurrence. A new menu item, menu mix, or recipe method are a few of the many possible causes. The operation must replace not only the specified component, but also the whole unit.
2: New equipment along with the old equipment is definitely controlled by the menu and the skills of the employees. As operators, we need to keep informed with new technology that is being developed. Purchasing new equipment that is available and most efficient for our menu needs and allowing room for future growth is an on-going process for management. “Multiple-use” equipment means that less space will be needed. With new equipment designs, especially the suite arrangements, estimates of 25% of space can be saved. Slow controlled cooking ovens can be used at night allowing for better daytime usage. You must select equipment that fits your needs. Assuming every piece of equipment sooner or later will fail or break down or deteriorate, you must establish a system of maintenance that forestalls breakdowns or emergency complications.
1: This is the heart of the matter that Frable should have addressed: “You must select equipment that fits your needs.” Multiple-use equipment, suite arrangements, and computerized controls may not fit the needs of an operation, despite its success in some kitchens. You probably won’t hear these points from the vendor.
So what will the vendor tell you? Probably the same points Frable has outlined in his piece. The author implies that technology is the cure-all for both sanitation and labor shortcomings. When it comes right down to it, however, the relevant issues are: 1) Sanitation needs improvement; and 2) Labor content and cost must be significantly reduced. Is new equipment the only answer? No. New equipment is the only answer available at the moment, because suppliers are able to spend the money and the time developing a solution. Rather than an objective solution, they have devised a self-serving one. And why not? They are, after all, in the business of making money.
2: Food safety is a No. 1 concern for many restaurant owners. A shortage of trained labor along with the language and literacy barriers our new workforce must overcome pose concerns for many of us. Equipment that is simple and easy to disassemble is more likely to be thoroughly cleaned. The training process should also be relatively simple.
1: All of these points are well-made, but they ignore the tremendous diversity within the foodservice industry. Training may not be relatively simple. Labor shortfalls may not be affected.
Jane Gannaway, CEO of Advantica, spoke at a NAFEM Technical Liason Committee this year on Equipment Purchasing Methods and the advantages of newer models similar to those highlighted by Frable. In a well-researched speech that balances praise with a devil’s advocate approach, Gannaway states that when more cleanable and streamlined equipment replaces old models, labor content will decrease, but not enough to reduce the quantity of labor needed:
“Not whole bodies out of restaurant, but elimination of tasks first; that may
not enable us to take out bodies, but it will let us do The Right Things.”
(Gannaway 2000)
Gannaway never expands on exactly what “The Right Things” are, but it is clear that managerial hope for lower labor cost may be a pipe dream.
Also, food safety is a risk management issue in hospitality. As such, it is dealt with in regards to the financial ability of the operation. Beaumont Vance, claim manager for Vicorp Restaurants Inc. comments, “Sound risk-management techniques look at risks and determine whether or not you can handle them and then how to handle them within your means.” (Allen 2000)
2: Yes, labor costs for cleaning equipment will decrease when a restaurant owner buys the newer and more cleanable and streamlined equipment that needs less manual cleaning. By purchasing this equipment more time could be spent on patron and customer needs. More time could also be spent on development of newer and innovative marketing strategies to increase customer satisfaction and profitability. More time could be spent on newer, more creative menu items. Wherever the time is spent, it won’t be spent on hours cleaning the equipment.
1: Only in the cases where managers assume line responsibilities will any time be reallocated to things like marketing strategies, menu changes, etc. Frable’s main contention is that labor costs will dramatically decrease due in large part to decreased training requirements. But who is trained to make the recommended improvements? To choose the equipment? To troubleshoot malfunctions? Up and coming culinary students might be… as well as a handful of managers who have had the luxury of taking the time to learn about the new equipment. But for the rest of managers, time constraints will increase.