Disposable versus reusable ware: Cost evaluation model development

Rochester Institute of Technology

RIT Scholar Works

Theses Thesis/Dissertation Collections

1991

Disposable versus reusable ware: Cost evaluation

model development

Ravi Pandit

Follow this and additional works at:http://scholarworks.rit.edu/theses

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Thesis/Dissertation Collections at RIT Scholar Works. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses by an authorized administrator of RIT Scholar Works. For more information, please [email protected].

Recommended Citation

DISPOSABLE VERSUS REUSABLE WARE: COST EVALUATION

MODEL DEVELOPMENT

By

Ravi Pandit

A Thesis submitted to the

Faculty ofthe School of_Food, Hoteland Travel Management

at

RochesterInstitute of_Technology

in partial fulfillment ofthe requirements

for the degree

of

FORMK ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

School of Food, Hotel and Travel Management Department of Graduate Studies

M.S. Hospitality-Tourism Management

Statement Grantin2 or Denyin2 Permission to Reproduce Thesis/Project

The author of a thesis or project should complete one of the following statements and include this statement as the page following the title page.

Title of thesis/project:

Model Development

Dis"osable versus Reusable Ware: Cost Evalllation

I, "_-_,--;:.- _ ,hereby (grant, deny) permission to the

Wallace Memorial Library of R.I.T., to reproduce the document titled above in

whole or part. Any reproduction will not be for commercial use or profit.

OR

I, Ravindra Pandjt, prefer to be contacted each time a

request for reproduction is made. I can be reached at the following address:

68 Kimball Drive

Rochester, New York 14623

FORM I ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

School of Food, Hotel and Travel Management Department of Graduate Studies

M.S. Hospitality-Tourism Management Presentation of ThesislProiect Findin2s

Name: Ravindra

v.

Title of Research: Disposable Versus Reusable Ware: Cost Evaluation

Model Development

Specific Recommendations: (Use other side if necessary.)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _(Chairperson) (1) Dr. Edward Stockham

(2) Dr. Richard F. Marecki

(3) Mr. Warren Sackler

OR Thesis Committee:

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Edward B. Stockham

Number o~Credits Approved: 8 credits

/J. /

J

~

Itt

I

Date Committee Chairperson's Signature

I

2/1f/

V

Date ~ Department Chairperson s Signature

Note: This form will not be signed by the Department Chairperson until all corrections, as suggested in the specific recommendations (above) are completed.

ABSTRACT

DisposableVersus Reusable ware: Cost Evaluation Model Development

by_

Ravi Pandit

The ever _growing problem of solid _waste, stricter environmental _regulations,

diminishing landfill space and _{escalating recycling} costs have forced the foodservice

operations _{using disposable} ware to find economical alternatives to the solid waste

generated. A computerized model wasdeveloped that enables foodservice operators to

evaluate the cost differences between theuse ofdisposableware and reusable ware and

further make adecision asto which wareis suitable, _economically and_{environmentally,}

for their operation. The cost evaluation model was based on the 1969 Laventhol &

Horwath model developed forthePermanent Ware Institute _Chicago, Illinois.

The model consists of three components: ₁₎ The cost evaluation model

(Spreadsheet), 2)Thequestionnaire, and₃₎Theusermanual. Themodel wasdeveloped

in fourphases: ₁₎Identificationand modification of_{keyvariables, 2)} Spreadsheet design

and _development, 3) Questionnaire design and development and ₄₎ User manual design

and development. Defaultvaluesand measuresforthevariableswereestablished onthe

basis of the data from the _{foodservice operations, utility} companies, refuse disposable

agencies and foodservice machinery and equipment manufacturers. The spreadsheet

programwascomputerized_{using Lotus} 1-2-3 andlatercompiledwith theBalercompiler

data entered in the worksheet. To facilitate valid and accurate data collection the

questionnaire was designed with _{self-explanatory} instructions and appropriate default

values as suggestediftherespondenthas_difficultyin _gatheringthe data. Auser manual

wasdevelopedto_helptheoperators oftheprogramtoinputdatawithease and accuracy.

The model was tested _{by analyzing} data from a commercial and a non commercial

operation.

The model will be used _by the Foodservice Coalition for Better Environment

(FCBE) to assist the foodservice operators _{in evaluating} the cost differences between

disposablewareand reusable ware. Onthebasisofthisevaluation_theycandecidewhich

service ware wouldbe appropriate fortheir operation.

13. WATER - COST PER 1000 GALLONS

Ifthewatercostisnotgiven_bythe_respondent, thedefaultvalue of$1.59000will appear

in the column. Type thewater cost from question no.13 to replace the defaultvalue.

DISPOSABLE REUSABLE

WARE WARE

WATER COSTS PER 1000 GALLONS N/A $1.5900

14. SEWAGE - CHARGE

PER 1000 GALLONS

Ifthesewage costisnot_given, the defaultvalue of$1.15000willappearinthis column.

You can replacethis amount_bytyping the actual cost provided in

question no.14.

DISPOSABLE REUSABLE

WARE WARE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

DEDICATION >JL iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OFFIGURES iv

Chapter I. INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE STUDY

Introduction 1

Background .7 2

Problem Statement 3

Purposeofthe _Study 3

Significance 4

Scope andLimitations 5

Assumptions 5

ChapterH. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Environmental Issues and Regulations 7

Software Designand Development 14

Questionnaire Design and Development 17

Manual Design and Development 18

Chapter m. METHODLOGY

Identification and Modificationof_KeyVariables 21

Spreadsheet Design and Development 23

Questionnaire Design and Development 26

User Manual Design and Development 26

Chapter D7. TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

Key Variable Selection and Assigned Measures 28

Spreadsheet Design and Development 35

Questionnaire Design and Development 43

Manual design and Development 43

Chapter V. CONCLUSION

Conclusion 46

Recommendations 47

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

APPENDICES

A. Questionnaire 54

B. User Manual 1 60

C. User Manual 1 85

D. Hobart _Dishwashing Machine Specifications 110

E. Rochester Gas and Electric _Utility Rates 115

F. Miscellaneous 120

DEDICATION

To the Teacher

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Richard S. _Cardarelli, Sales Manager _Bestway Disposal & Environmental Services Inc.

Henrietta, NY.

Phillip Cooke, Executive Director _{FCBE, Louisvillle,} KY.

Bob _Dank, Asst. Director ofFacilities Rush-Henrietta School _{District, Henrietta,} NY.

Joan _Gallucci, Director of School Food _Service, Rush-Henrietta School _District,

Henrietta, NY.

Garry Gasper, Catering Manager RIT Food _{Service, Rochester,} NY.

Remmert _Laan, President _FCBE, Eco _{Lab, St.Paul,} MN.

Deanne _Marsh, FoodserviceSales Representative Hobart _{Corpn., Buffalo,} NY.

Stan _Palmeteer, Director ofFacilities Rush-Henrietta School _District, Henrietta,NY.

Joseph M. _{Rizzo, Engineer, Marketing} Services Rochester Gas and Electric _Corpn.,

Rochester, NY.

Lynn _Shrammel, Monroe _County DepartmentofSolid _Waste, NY.

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

1. Types and Percentages ofWaste Generated 13

2. Refuse and Garbage_Hauling Costs 24

3. Mathematical Formulas Used in the Program 36

4. Reports Generated _by theProgram

a.CoverLetter 40

b._Summary ofCosts 41

c.Cost Evaluation Worksheet 42

6. Test Dataused to Evaluate Questionnaire and Cost Evaluation

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURES

1. Percent Solid Waste ofTotal Garbage 9

Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

Like _quality control and the globalization of _business, the environmental

movement isnow a fact ofcorporate life. A serious challenge confronts theUS in the

1990's

-appropriatedisposal ofthe 160 million tons ofwaste thatare emitted _annually

into municipal solid waste streams tobe_buried, burned or recycled (Coddington,1990).

It is estimated _that, over 50% of all _{existing landfills} will reach _capacity within eight

years. _Facing strict regulations onfoodservice disposablesand_decreasinglandfill _space,

food service operations are_looking at alternativesto reducetheamount of wastecreated

with cost effective solutions (Shaw, 1990). One ofthe alternatives to be looked at _by

foodservice organizations which use disposable ware is to convert it to reusable ware.

This _studywas conductedto_developa softwareprogram_usingan econometricmodel to

do a cost comparison analysis ofdisposableware versus reusable ware.

Many forces_todaypointtotheneedfora systematic approachtocostcomparison

analysis. Thisanalysisincludesevaluationofthefinancialramifications of anexpenditure

along with a lookathow sensitive a selected alternativeis to changes in_key variables.

The economic analysis ofthe tangible factors is a _reasonably standard procedure _easily

implemented on a spreadsheet _(Graff,1989).

Thecost ofdevelopinga spreadsheet software system also needstobeconsidered

system, one needs tobalance numerical data with qualitative considerations. A system

thatappearsto beinexpensivewill not_necessarily beso in thefuture. Itis importantto

weigh both initial expenses and costs that will arise _during the system's life cycle

(^011106^1989).

Asimple and economic model was_{developed, taking}intoconsiderationtheinitial

expenses and the costs ofthis model's life cycle. Theprogram consists ofthree major

components:

A. The cost evaluation program _{(Spreadsheet)}

B. The questionnaire

C. The Usermanual.

The worksheet was designed _using the Lotus 1-2-3 software and compiled with

theBalersoftware program tofacilitatethe_{compatibility}oftheprogram onIBMorIBM

compatibles with DOS (Disk _Operating System).

Aquestionnairethedatacollectiontoolwasdesignedtogetinformationabout_key

variables. Ausermanual wasdeveloped for easy inputofdataand operation withoutthe

necessecity ofany specializedtraining.

Background

Asrequested _originallybyEcoLab Inc.andlaterturnedovertoThe FoodService

Coalition for a Better Environment, a simple cost comparison model based on the

"PreliminaryWare Handling CostEvaluation Form" developed_by Laventhol Krekstein

operator without specialized training. The Laventhol & Horwath model needed to be

simplified and updated_{by identifying} the _key variables and_{by determining} appropriate

defaultvalues. Thecost evaluation model wouldbe in a generalized format and based

on mathematical calculations and default values.

The Laventhol &Horwath model was designedto evaluatedatafrom _elementaryschool

cafeterias and had its limitationsin applications tocommercial foodservice operations.

Problemstatement

How can the foodservice operations reduce solid waste generated _by the use of

disposableware? andHowcantheenvironmental problem ofsolidwastebeapproached

economically?

Purpose of_{the study}

Thepurpose ofthe_studywasto_developa computerizedmodelthatwouldenable

foodserviceoperatorsto evaluatethecostdifferences betweentheuse ofdisposableware

and reusable ware in all types of operations. Based on reliable and valid input data

supplied by a foodservice operator, the program would provide a costs comparison

Significance

Econometric and regression modelshave been and are_being used as successful

tools_{in evaluating}costs _by accountantsand professionalsin the_{manufacturing industry.}

Thesemodels and programs are complex and needprofessionalexpertisetooperate. The

foodservice_industryhasbeenan ever_growing andan ever_expandingindustry. Itisalso

subject to strict regulations because ofthe environmental impacts it creates throughthe

waste itgenerates. One ofthe major factors _contributing to thevolume of solid waste

generated is the use ofdisposable ware _{by many foodservice} operations. The _industry

is _looking for alternatives to reduce solid _{waste, because} of the strict government

regulations, social _{pressures, decreasing} landfill space and high costs of recycling. A

softwareprogram_usingspreadsheet applicationswould_helpfoodserviceoperations make

realistic cost comparisonswhen_{choosing between}theuseofdisposableware and reusable

ware. Asstated _above, econometric and regression modelsforcost comparison analysis

areusedanddeveloped in differentfieldsbutnone sofar have been developedtoevaluate

cost for foodserviceoperations to analyzethe use ofdisposableversus reusable ware.

This_studyisofgreat significanceto thefoodserviceoperators and otherindustries

dealing in reusable ware. The results of this _study will provide a simple _tool, to the

decisionmakersinthefoodservice_industry, intheformofa software programtobeused

with minimum expertise on a PC. This model includes all the _key variables and

appropriatedefaultvaluesbasedonnational_averages, thus_keepingtheerrorsin thefinal

Scope and Limitations

The cost evaluation model will _help foodservice operators to evaluate the cost

differences between the use of disposable and reusable ware. On the basis of this

evaluation, they would be ableto decide which ware is suitablefor their operation. Thelimitations ofthis model are:

l.The social costs are nottaken into consideration.

2.The cost comparison is limitedto disposable and reusable ware.

3.Themodel does not other alternative service wares made of

biodegradable and recyclable material.

4. The _{compatibility} ofthe software to different PC programs other than

Lotus 1-2-3.

5.The _study does not evaluate or suggest _any other alternative computer

systems otherthan the one used inthis study.

Assumptions

The basic assumption ofthis_study was_that, themodel would compute_{the costs,}

of _using disposable and reusable ware so that _they could be easily compared and

evaluated. The majorcost areas affected by the conversion from disposableto reusable

warewouldbe: labor costs,_machineryand equipmentcosts, refusedisposalcostsandthe

original cost ofdisposableand reusableware.

With an _easy to operate _model, that does not require specialized _ttaining,

foodserviceoperators wouldbe ableto getcomparative costsinordermakethedecision

to _modify ifthe program needed to be revised or updated. The final cost evaluations

from this model would reflect a significant reduction in refuse disposal costs _{by using}

Chapter II

LITERATUREREVEEW

Environmental issues and _regulations, software design and _development,

questionnaire design and user

-manual development are discussed in this section.

Environmental Issues andRegulations

Although _many environmentalissuesaffect_restaurants, solidwasteisone oftheir

biggestconcern. The United Statesproduced 227 milliontonsof garbagein 1987. For

much of its _history the US has preferred _eliminating waste after it was created over

workingtoeliminateitbeforeitcomesintoexistence. While recycling ispopularinmost

parts ofthe_country, itis not yet_profitable, even forsuch _specialtycompanies asReuter

Inc._(Recycling company). In the future we will be seeing stronger management

guidelines, includingadaptingauniformnational garbagedisposal feeand_imposingstrict

limits on illegal _{dumping (Kindle,}1988). With each person in the US _generating an

averageof1,000poundsoftrashayear, landfillsarefillingupand cities areseeking new

solutions for waste removal

(Brooks/Watzmanj

municipalities and private trash haulers pick _up our country's garbage. _{At present,}

private companies serve around60% of allhouseholdsand remove more than90% ofthe

nations commercial refuse. Most ofthis wasteis deposited in landfills _(Scarpa, 1990).

The Environmental Protection_{Agency (EPA)} is _taking proposed environmental

regulations torulesthatletcompanies_{developpotentially} cheaper solutions. _According

to the _EPA, the waste streamconsisted of several major components. The total amount

is 157.7 million_tons, out of whichthefoodwasteis7.9% and themajor elements which

contribute to the volume are_{different packaging} materials such as plasticandpaper etc.

(See Figure 1.). _According to the _study conducted_by the Wall Street Journal _(January

1991) onthe major sources of waste_byfast food_restaurants, thefood wastes were34%

ofthe total solid _waste, where as 66% ofthe waste included the packaging, disposable

ware and other wastes (See Figure_2.)

Top chief executive officers like Dow's Frank Popoff and Du Pont's Edgar

Woolardhavebeen_takingthe"environment" ontheroad_{recently, urging}broad_industry

initiatives. _{Cynics may} dismiss this as a belated attempt to win _{sympathy from} an

aroused public, but there seems to be a major change in corporate attitudes about the

environment. President Bush's proposed Clean Air Act (1989), for _example, gives

companies the _flexibility to either _buy pollution rights or put in tighter controls.

Increasinglythe corporate emphasisis on_minimizingwaste ratherthan _treating it. This

isaphilosophicalchangetriggeredin largepart_{by rising}landfillcosts. Amajor positive

effect oftheseinitiativesisthat_manyeffortstosavetheenvironmentalso savecompanies

hard cash. (Swiolop/Barrett,1990). Forty states have recycling laws. A handful have

banned specific_products, othershave implemented deposit-refundsystems. Thefederal

government is likely to soon begin drafting new solid-waste regulations. At the same

time, policies to facilitate disposal willbe ignored or evenundermined withregulations

Figure 1. _{PERCENTSOLID WASTE OFTOTALGARBAGE}

ca

o

.a

u-CD

C-to

0_ TD

C

ra u in a> _in

o. rn

TO a. O

ra

K _J) W a

X! o 0.1

c

TO

in _VL

in

TO in TO o

CD <D_

in

(Tt XI X o_o

o

O v

3 03 o ra

D. CC r- _UL

>

a Or

-5f

Figure 2. MAJOR SOURCES OF WASTE "q3 in 03 X o to cn

3 cncz sz

0

m 03

sz O- v_ _{Q. <}

CL in

CO O) 3 ca ra XD 3 ro

cn cn 03 tn

'q. >vin Q. TO CL c: i_ CD ra c: ra in O O 5

a x: _in CL CD O 03 jr _ ^" >v T3 ^ ra TU Ct) TO cn V o ro v_ o CO ra o in ;g '3 cr 4 CD SZ CL 0 CD * ra 0 CL ro CL -0 03 * ra 0 in CL ra 0

U. O O D. _i 0 ZD O Q- =

D H E m IB n

Yet these regulations seem to beill-conceived. _{Recycling is only} apartial solution to

thesolidwasteproblem. Thebasicobjectiveistopursuetheefficientuse of all resources

(Scarlett,1991).

Recycling has beenone ofthe solutions to reduce theamountoftrashgenerated.

The_{boost in recycling has} comefrom controversies over municipal waste _{incineration,}

shrinkinglandfillspace and_risinglandfill_costs, and_tighteningenvironmental regulations

(Basta^1987). At _present, most _{recycling is done} on a modest scale and the benefit it

bringsto theenvironmentis less than theeconomic cost of_turningwasteinto _something

useful. The cost of _recycling is decided _by the cost of collection and the market for

which it is collected. Without a market for reusable _{materials, recycling} is pointless.

The US recyclinggiantWasteManagement findsthat theeconomics of_recycling makes

sense _only where landfill costs are high (Westerman,1990).

Whether the public and the lawmakers accept _it, the _industry now has more

scientificbasis to dispel misconceptions. For_instance, excavations oflandfills indicate

that, fast-food packaging accounts for _only one quarter of 1 % of landfill solid _waste,

according to studies _{by University} of Arizona professor William L. Rathje.(1989).

According to data fromthe EPAand theNationalSolidWasteManagement Association

(1989), all plastics account for 7.3% by weight after _recycling materials are removed.

The major waste componentis paper, accounting for 35.6% by weight of solid waste

after recycling. In most instances, paper that has touched food cannot _{be recycled;}

neithercanpaper coated with waxorplastic, asismostfoodservicepaper. Itistherefore

Servicewarebestrepresents the foodservice industry's ecological concerns. All

three service ware options _paper, polystyrene and permanent ware

-present

environmentalhazards. Noneisthebestin_{every situation,} and concerned operators are

studying the benefits and downfalls of each _(Feldman, 1991). Jere Sellers (1991),

Programmanager for FranklinAssociatesofPrairie_{Village, Kansas,} says, "Eachoption

has trade-offs. If your concern is _only solid _waste, then refillables or reusables are

probably theway you should go."

Analysis ofoperations _survey data reveals that fast food restaurants experienced

the highest waste-removal expenses on both a per-seat and a per square-footage basis.

Fast _{food survey} respondents reported a median waste-removal expenditure in 1990 of

$16per _seat, or$0.51per squarefoot. In comparison, fullmenu-table service operators

posteda somewhatlowermedian waste of$14perseat or$0.48persquarefoot_(Hudson,

1991).

Research _by the _University ofWisconsin-Stout in _Menommonie, WI and TFC _Corp

(1989)onsolidwaste producedbyfoodserviceoperations showsthatfast-foodrestaurants

had_by farthe largest proportion ofpaper _waste, with 65% compared to 44% for

full-service and 40% institutional (See Table 1). Itcanbe assumed that, because ofstricter

regulations on solid waste disposal and high _{recycling costs,} one of the alternatives to

solvethisproblem wouldbe forthefoodserviceoperations_{using disposable}serviceware

to convertto reusable ware. To make this _decision, the foodservice operationswould

havetoevaluatethecost differences. A spreadsheetsoftware programcouldbedesigned

TYPES flllD PERCENTAGES OF WASTE GENERATED

II II r-r<

II II II II II 1 11 1 II 1 II 1 II 1

II LU 1

II _! I

II 1=1 |

II = 1

II 1 1

II CJ 1

II = 1

II CJ 1 "X vs. x 11

y 1 LD m CD

II II

cs

1 m m m

II 11 II II l II 11

II ii i1 vt "X "X II

II

i i

LU 1

i =o rn vjD

11 1

II LU 1 1 II .s^*

1 II >

1 1 II 1 1 1

II cn i

II > _j

_

II i 1 X

11 CD 1 I ca x x

11 11

Cu 1 1 H cu c-> II

11 CJ I

II 1 1 1 II 1 _{1 1} II cn i 1

II CC 1 1 ~X x

II i I r-n =r x

11 II

Cu

{

. i co

II e: I

II 33 l

II

II t1 I

II e: 1

II =3 I

II i I X -x X.

II 11 II

<= 1 -l T m

1 1

II 1

II I

II cn 1

It cn 1

II

.*'-1 . "X

II _J 1 vt. CU "X II CD I ITS r-l

~^~

II 1 '

11 I

II 1

.11 1

II CiC 1

II LU 1

II Cu 1 >. X. "X II <= 1 CD

^-UT II Ct. I -S" ~^*

>JD

II 1

II 1

II 1

11 1

II s=a 1 11

II CD I -x vc

II CD 1 _ ft * 1 x 11

II Ll_ 1 cu CU LD II

II 1 II

II 1 II

II 1 11

II 1 II

II 1 II

II 1 II

II 1 11

II II 1 II

II I d LU II

II 1 ^z CJ II

II II CD i l 11

II 11 ! z> ca II

II 11 t CD II

II 11 3D LU CD ll

II II

II 1 II 1

CO U_ II

II II I _! 1 II

II ii cn 1 cn II

II II zzz ^D czz II

II u >i U_ Ll_ II

SoftwareDesign andDevelopment

Edward Yourdon ₍₁₉₇₅₎ has listed what he considers to be the important

qualities of a good computer program:

1. It works.

2.It works _according to specification.

3. It is flexible.

4.1t has no bugs.

5. It is well documented.

6.It executes quickly.

These qualities appear to emphasize that a program is not _merely an algorithm

translated into a_programming language with some consideration ofdata structures. A

structuredapproachinthedevelopmentofthesoftwaresystem wouldassurethattheuser

is provided with thebestproduct possible fortheleast cost to the developer.

Thesoftware developed in this _{study is from} a standardLotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet

application but has beenpersonalized and augmented for thepurpose of cost evaluation

ofdisposable and reusable ware.

Spreadsheetsarecomputerprogramsand can maketedious_{time-consuming}chores

quickand easy. Oneimportant approach tocontrolling spreadsheeterrors is toestablish

validation procedures. Validationproceduresincludetestingthespreadsheetwith random

data to establish the _validity and consistency ofthe results _{(Stone/Black,}1989). This

validation process could be doneby performing "what if'

scenarios.

factor is changed and the effect of that change is reflected throughout the spreadsheet

Solvers and _backsolvers, mathematical calculation functions that extend the analytical

reach of_{spreadsheets,} make even moreusefultoendusers who wanttolookattheirdata

in differentways _(Darrow,1990). Simple spreadsheets are found tobe _easy to use.

In creatingspreadsheet_models,one must striveforsimplicity. _Keyvariableshave

tobeidentified andthen several waysof_viewing theproblem haveto bethoughtof and

tighterboundaries havetobeplaced aroundacceptable solutions. _{By keeping} the model

simple, the _key variables are kept on the-surface, accessible to others who make

decisions. _Faulty logic can be spotted _{quickly (Rather,} 1991).

Spreadsheet designpolicies and procedures canbeclassifiedintotwo categories:

1) Specific _quality control policies used to _help reduce the risk of errors and to make

review _easier, and ₂₎ Procedures for _{improving efficiency} to conserve _time, computer

memory and keystrokes. Procedures for improving _efficiencyinclude: 1) Using global

settings when_possible, 2) Building a_library of modules thatcouldbe incorporated into

future spreadsheets and _{3) Being} consistent in spreadsheet formatting. _(Fleenor, 1989).

Smallerworksheetsthatarelinkedtogethermake errors easierto detectand_{usually limit}

damaging effects ofthese errors. _{Naming assembly} components ofthe spreadsheet are

particularly vital to developing spreadsheets systematically. These include using

consistent names for spreadsheet files, headings, labels and cell ranges._Storing a

spreadsheet's file name, disk directory address and the developer's name in both the

spreadsheetitselfandinaseparate_logcouldbeanothercontrolthatfacilitatesspreadsheet

According to Simkin _(1987), spreadsheet standards that aid error detection are:

Planning spreadsheetlayouts sotheirappearanceisconsistentor so_theyconform

to guidelines or _{manual reports.}

-Reserving the same rows or columns in all spreadsheets for_parameters, like

routines, or similar data.

-Employing @ROUND function for uniform dataprecision and _{help identify}

incorrectinputs.

-Developing spreadsheets in a _staix-step patternof_blocks, with each block

devoted to a separate _{processing step} whichensures that theuser would not

inadvertently change accurate data or formulas in rows that contain errors.

As spreadsheet datanumbers pass from oneperson to _another, thesource ofthe

modelandits assumptionsbecomemore distant. _Establishing documentation standards,

however, can preserve a spreadsheet's usefulness and make it easier to audit. _(Simkin,

1987).

To make the program versatile and _{customized, BalerXE} (extended _Edition)

program canbeused . The Balerprogramturns theLotus 1-2-3 spreadsheets into .EXE

filesthatrun_{bythemselves,} withoutspreadsheet software. Baledprograms are easierto

use, so _they are more _likely to beused _by others and because the formulas and macros

can be _permanently secured, the users can't tamper with the applications. Baler Xe

transformsprograms into self-running, stand-alone applications. Baled calculations and

macros run_up to 30% faster than the original software (BalerXE Manual, 1990).

collection tool hasto be selected and evaluated. Thedata collection tool for the model

forthis _studywas thequestionnaire. The design and_wordingofthequestionnaire would

determine if the data was complete and valid enough to be entered in the spreadsheet

model.

Questionnaire design and_Development

The mail _{questionnaire,} more than _any other type of _{questionnaire,} requires

careful_{construction,} for italone comes underTherespondent's complete control. Itmust

truly be its own advocate. The respondent's first exposure to the look and feel ofthe

questionnaire provides thefirst ofseveral critical tests that thequestionnaire must pass.

To encourage further examination the questionnaire must be designed to provide

immediate and positive answers to concerns over its _{importance, difficulty} and length

(Dillman,1978).

The questionnaire is the _{basic measuring instrument.} It becomes the common

ruler against which each respondent'sinformationmustbeplaced. Theneedisclearthat

the "ruler" must not_only meanthe same_thing toeach _respondent, itmust also mean the

same_thing toboththewriter andtherespondent. The_{only way}to raisetheoddsforthis

is to test _key words used in the questionnaire _{(Dutka,Frankel,Roshwalb,} 1982).

The bestmethod of_constructinga questionnaireis to start_{by considering}whatit

is you_really wantto know. This will _immediately suggest related topics that should be

covered. Thesewillhavetobeamplifiedsothatalltherelevant pointsare noted. Before

thereplieswillbeanalyzed. Whenfactual data isneededthequestionnaireshould consist

offactual questions. A factual question refers to the type ofinformation the question

seeks, notto the_accuracy oftheanswer. Iftherespondentmisunderstands_{the question,}

theanswer_maynotbe factualat all. But_{in general,} questions_requiring factsas_answers,

do notprovide _{many difficulties} as _long asitis clear what facts are wanted._(Schofield,

1969)

Theprocess of_{collectinginformation,} regardless ofthe _{technique used,} requires

that thecollectorfirstdecidewhatfactsmustbeobtained. Thesefactsmustbe_necessary

to the solution oftheproblem under_study, and_they must setforthas_specificallywritten

statementsthatdescribeandexplain_exactly theinformationrequired. (Clover &_Balsley,

1984).

Thequestionnaire's front_cover, is_likely tobeexaminedbefore_any other part of

thequestionnaire. Thefrontcover receivesthegreatest attention and contains₍₁₎a _study

title, (2)a graphic illustration, (3) _any needed _directions, and ₍₄₎ thename and address

ofthe _study sponsor _(Dillman, 1978).

Oncethedataisreceivedintheformof a completed_{questionnaire,} theuserofthe

model would have to input this data for analysis into the spreadsheet model. An

instruction manual would help the userto input this data.

Manual Design andDevelopment

One of thebiggestproblems in the implementation of a new computer program

userofthe _program, decides the success ofthe computer program _(Lundin, 1990). On

line manualshavebecomepopular asanadjuncttoclassroomtraining. Onegood reason

for adding them to a _trainingprogramis the_difficultyof_scheduling off-the-job _training

sessions. Another is the finite _capacity of human _{memory for} long-term storage of

infrequentlyusedinformation. Themethod and means existtopermit thecreationofon

line instruction manuals that are _easy to _use, fast on _retrieval, and to the point _(Keys,

1990). More detail has to beadded to informal instructions and more precise language

has tobe used to makethe manual understandable _by the personnel who would operate

and maintain theprogram. Information and languagein thetheoretical descriptions and

otherdata has to _{be similarly} rewritten and made more explicit.

A manual couldbedivided into two sections: l.A planning and _{start-up section,}

and2. Operationsection. Thepurpose ofthe_planningand _start-up sectionis to_help the

end-userto preparefor theinstallation ofthecomputer program. Theoperation section

wouldhavetwoaudiences. The_primaryaudience wouldbetheoperator ofthecomputer

program andanyonedesignated asa_backupoperator. The_secondaryaudience wouldbe

the manager. Thecontents ofboth these sections could bewritten so that anyone could

take over in an emergency.

Themanualhastobedesignedtogivetheusera complete_information,right from

the title and the cover page to the last specific instruction. The words "Instruction

Manual"

immediatelyletsthereaderknow exactlywhatclass of publicationitisand what

it is for. The table of contents page reveals the manual's _contents, not _{only by}

page and the table of

contents'

page should be the _start-up section and the operation

section. All theinstructions shouldbeginwith action verbs (Cohen/Cunningham, 1984).

The Manual design should be directed _by the design of the model and the

questionnaireand should_logicallyrelateto themain model andthequestionnaire without

any confusion.

Chapter m

METHODOLOGY

The disposable versus reusable ware cost comparison model development took

place at the School of Food Hotel and Travel Management of Rochester Institute of

Technology, Rochester New _York, fromAugust 1991 to november 1991. The original

studyconductedin 1969wasevaluated and_theTseyvariables wereidentifiedand modified

forusein the revised and updated model.

This_studydevelopedand evaluatedthe cost comparison model_usingthe_keycost

variables for which data would be collected and evaluated from commercial and non

commercial foodservice operations. The _Study was conducted in four phases:

1.Identificationandmodificationofkeyvariables,2.Spreadsheet designanddevelopment,

3.Questionnaire design and_development, and 4. Usermanual design and development.

Identificationand modification of_key variables

Thevariables werecategorizedintwosections:_a) Generalinformationsection and

b)Numericaldatasection. Thegeneralinformation sectionincludedthe_companyname,

contact_name, type ofbusiness, and the date on which the data would be evaluated.

Thevariablesincluded inthenumericaldatasection, whichconsistedofthemajor

part ofthe worksheet, were sub-divided under fivecategories:

a.Volume: Thevariables included in this _{category were, The} Number ofMeals

Meal(withclassification of each _utensil)and theCosteachofDisposable Utensils. The

utensils used as service ware _only were_included. A local school cafeteriadirectorwas interviewed for the types of utensils used as service ware and their _costs, and to

determine the lowestcommon denominator forthe "Data Period".

b. LaborCosts: Thevariablesincludedinthis_{categorywere,} average_hourlywage

for ware_{washing/handling employees, employeebenefits, and average number ofhours}

spent ware_{washing/handling} perdataperiod. A defaultvalue of 17 % ofthewages for

thevariable employee benefits was established. The U.S. Bureau ofLabor Statistics'

index was referred for _estabhshing the defaultvalue for employeebenefits.

c.Machinery. Equipment and Related costs: The variables included in this

category were, original costof_machineryand equipment_{including installation, monthly}

lease cost of equipmentif_leased, averagelife of_machinery and _equipment, and annual

repairs and maintenance costs. A defaultvalue offivepercent ofthe_yearly cost ofthe

machinery for annual repairs and maintenance cost was established. _Also, a default

value of 10 years forthe average lifeof_machinery and equipment was established.

d.CostofUtilities.DetergentsandRinseAdditives: Thevariablesincludedinthis

category were, detergent and rinse additives-cost per_{rack, electricity} cost per kilowatt

hour, watercost per 1000_gallons, and sewage costper 1000gallons. Defaultvaluesfor

utility rates were assignedon thebasisofthe data collected fromtheRochester Gas and Electric company, andfrom theUnited States government'sindex. On thebasis ofthe

informationprovided_bytheMonroe_{county (State}ofNew York) offices andthe _city of

per 1000 gallons werederived. The unit measure for thesevariables was based on per

rack_{basis according}to the specificationfrom theHobartfoodserviceequipment manual.

5.OtherCosts: Thevariablesincludedinthis

categorywere, cost ofreusable ware

inventory, annual breakage and replacement _cost, refuse disposal cost per data period,

and number oftrash bags or canliners usedper dataperiod, and cost of each trash _bag

or can liner. Thedefaultvalue of25% per year for replacement ofreusable ware was

derived on thebasis ofthe informationprovided_by the areafoodservice _operators, and

calculated on the basis of 100% replacemenfof entire _inventory ofreusable ware in a

four year period. Interviews were conducted with a representatives of a local refuse

disposal_companyandtheMonroe_{county department}for solid_waste, andthedirector of

the physical plant at RTT to set _up the measure for refuse disposal costs. Refuse and

garbage _hauling rates from a local _company were evaluated (See Table 2). A ratio

constant of 1.0 to 2.9 for refuse disposal cost of reusable wareto disposableware was

established based on the Laventhol & Horwath _study and the interview with the local

refuse disposal company. Most ofthevariables were selected from theprevious study.

Thevariable "Intereston Capital investment" from theprevious _studywas eliminated.

Afterallthe_keyvariables werelistedand_identified, theformulastocalculatethe

costs were established. Spreadsheet designand developmentphase wasundertaken.

Spreadsheet Design andDevelopment

The main worksheet was designed on the Lotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet format after

evaluatingother softwareprograms, likeExceland "C" language, withtheconsultant and

Table 2

Refuse and garbage _hauling rates.

CONTAINER PICKUPS MONTHLY

SIZE PER WEEK RATE

8_,YARD 1 $200

6,YARD 1 $150

4_,YARD 1 $116

8,YARD 5 $855

6,YARD 5 $630

4,YARD 5 $420

Source: _{Bestway Disposal &}

Environmental Services Inc.

in a worksheet format designedon a spreadsheet and computerized _by a consultant.

Theworksheetwas divided intwo sections tocorrespond tothevariables: ₁₎ The

general information section and the₂₎ Thenumerical data section. Thenumerical data

section had three major _columns, the item column which listed _{the variables,} the

disposableware column forthe disposableware costs and thereusable ware column for

the reusable ware _{costs, corresponding} to the variables. The columns and rows where

thenumerical data was to beentered werelinked with macros and simple mathematical

formulas were established in respective

cells"

of the spreadsheet to compute costs.

The default values were assigned to the designated rows and columns with an

option fortheuserto overwritethose defaultvalues. Theworksheetwastested_byusing

random numerical data to check if the formulas worked. Two more sections were

included intheprogram which would notshow _up onthe computer screenbutwould be

hidden and linked to the main worksheet with macros. These two sections were the

summary of costs and a cover letter fromthe person _analyzing the _data, to theperson

receiving the final reports.

Theworksheet waslimitedtoone page andhadthe_capabilitytoscroll_upordown

so that the person _entering the data in the worksheet could still seethe titles and labels

ofthe columns and rows.

Finally theprogram was compiled with Baler software and made_totally selfcontained.

Aftertheprogram wasdeveloped itwasnecessaryto testtheprogram with actualdata.

A questionnaire was designed and developed to acquire relevant and complete data for

QuestionnaireDesign andDevelopment

The questionnaire is a _very vital component of this model. It had to be very

carefully designed so as to get complete and accurate data. The questionnaire was

designed based on the variables used in the worksheet. After _testing the initial

questionnaire developed to collect datato test the program, the questionnaire had to be

revised. The original questionnaire did not have _any provisions for cost of each

disposableutensil and no clearinformation was given to assist therespondent in _getting

relevantdatafromwhatsources. Therevised"questionnaire was self_explanatoryandhad

moredetailedexplanations and sourceslistedundereach question to_helptherespondent

to answer each question _fully and easily.(See Appendix A for Questionnaire).

Afterthe spreadsheetandthequestionnairewere_{designed, developed,} and_tested,

auser manual for theprogram was designed and developed.

UserManual DesignandDevelopment

Keepinginmindtheend users ofthisprogram, ausermanualhadtobe developed

to _helpinputdataintheprogram with ease and without_anyspecialized training. _During

the course ofdevelopment ofthis program, the program was restricted and compatible

to systems whichhadtheLotussoftware. Thefirstmanual wasdesigned anddeveloped

for this program (see Appendix B). When the program was compiled to eliminate its

adaptability problem, the start-up procedures for the compiled version ofthe program

were different than the original program. A second manual was developed which

Appendix C). The steps in the manual had to correspond to the questions in the

questionnaireto avoid confusion on the part ofthe user oftheprogram. The do's and

don'ts hadto beclearandwere simplified_byusing notes of caution wherever necessary.

ChapterIV

TABULATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

The ever _growing problem of solid _waste, stricter environmental regulations,

diminishing landfill space and _{escalating recycling} costs have forced the foodservice

operations _usingdisposablewaretofind alternativestoreducethe solidwastegenerated.

The model in this _study was developed for foodservice operators to evaluate the cost

differencesbetweentheuses ofdisposableware andreusable wareandtomake adecision

as to whichware is _{suitable, economically} and _{environmentally,} for their operation.

Key variable selection and assigned measures

Thetwo dependentvariables tobe measured were:

1. Total annual cost as aresult of_{using disposable serviceware,} and

2. Total annual cost as a result of_{using Reusable} serviceware.

Thesetwo variables wereidentifiedasdependentvariablesbecausethemodel was

to be developed to compare the two costs. The costs incurred from the areas of food

production and storage were notincluded as theywerefound tobe identical and did not

deal with the use ofservice ware.

Thevariables were categorizedin two sections: General information section and

Numericaldatasection. Thiswasdone specificallytoavoid confusion_during dataentry.

ofbusiness and the date. As itwas _suggested, three new variable added to the general

informationsection_were, titleofthecontact_person, addressandtelephonenumberofthe

business.

The independent variables in the numerical data section were divided into five

sections: _{Volume, Labor costs, Machinery,} Equipment and Related _costs, Cost of

Utilities, DetergentsandRinse_Additives, tofacilitatesystematic and_easydata_collection,

to _simplify the spreadsheet design and produce easier-to-read final reports.

The independent variables in the Volume section were identified as follows:

Number of meals servedperdataperiod, Number ofdataperiodsper _year, Number of

utensils per meal and cost of each disposable service ware. The number ofmeals per

dataperiod were requiredtocomputethecostof ware on per-meal and annualbasis. The

"

Number ofDataperiodsPer Year"

wasincludedto ensure uniform datacollection for

validcostcomputationand comparison. The "data

period"

wasthe_keycomponentinthe

formulas and as most of the data had to correspond to the data period, the lowest

commondenominatorforthedataperiodhad tobe derived. Sincethedataperiod inthe

school systems was in days, and most ofthe data was available on a per day basis the

lowestcommon denominatorforthe dataperiod was established as "per day"

. The data

period couldbe entered asper_day, per weekor per month andthismeasurebecamethe

multiplier forthe costs thatwere tobe computed on dataperiod basis. The " Number

ofUtensils Per

Meal"

variable was includedto computethe cost ofdisposableware on

apermeal andper yearbasis. Theformula tocomputethe annualdisposableware cost

Disposable ware costs = _Number

ofmeals servedper dataperiod x Number of

dataperiods per year xNumber ofutensils used per meal x Cost ofeach utensil

The independent variables identified and listed to derive the labor costs for

handling disposable ware and reusable warewere as follows: Average_hourly wage for

ware_{washing/handling employees,} Employee _benefits, Average numberofhours spent

ware _{washing/handling} per dataperiod.

Initiallyitwasdecided touse minimumwage dollaramount as adefaultvaluefor

average_hourlywages,buttheinvestigationsshowedthatemployeesinthis_categorywere

paid above theminimum wageand thevarianceinwagesbetween differentfood service

operations was _{very wide, therefore,} no defaultvalue was assigned to average _hourly

wage. Based on the interviews with the school district a commercial foodservice

operation, and previous studies, adefaultvalue of17% ofwagesfor "employeebenefits"

was established. The formulato computelabor cost was derived as follows:

Laborcost = _{Total laborcost per}data_period [Average

hourlywage + Employee

benefits x Averagenumberofhours spent ware _{washing/handling]} x Number of

dataperiods per year.

The independent variables identified and listed to derive the formulas to compute the

machinery, equipmentand related costs were as follows: Original cost of_machinery

and equipment (including installation), monthly leasecost of_equipment, averagelifeof

machinery/equipment, annual repairs and maintenance costs.

The HobartFoodserviceEquipmentManual(1991)wasreferredtogetanoverview

include the cost of installation of the _{machinery in} the original cost because it was

difficult to estimate the cost of installation. This was due to the wide variance in

installation costs because of different sizes of_machinery and geographical locations of

dealers and users and made it impossible to listthe installation cost as an independent

variable. _According to standard_accountingproceduresfordepreciation, theaveragelife

of_machinery and equipmentwas estimated tobe 10 years and sothedefault value of10

years was established. A default value of5% ofthe _yearly cost ofthe _machinery and

equipment cost for _yearly repairs and maintenance was assigned because the previous

studies (Laventhol & Horwath ₁₉₆₉₎ showed thatitwas afair estimate.

Theformulasderivedtocomputethe_Machinery, equipment and relatedcost were

as follows:

Machinery, Equipment and Related cost = _{Original cost of}

Machinery and

Equipment/Average life of _machinery and equipment + Annual Repairs

and Maintenancecost _[Yearly cost of_machineryx 5% ].

Theindependentvariablesidentifiedandlistedto derivetheformulasto compute cost of

utilities, detergents and rinse additives were asfollows: Detergents/Rinseadditives-cost

per_{rack, Electricity}cost perkw. _hr.,water-cost per 1000 _gallons, sewage-costper 1000

gallons. As it isthe _industry standard to measure theutensilsfor washing on a per rack

basis it was decided to measure thecost ofdetergent/rinse _additives, water and sewage

cost on a per-rack basis _according to the measurements provided _by the Hobart

Foodservice Equipment Manual (See Appendix D). A default value of $0.04000 for

detergent/rinseadditives- _{cost per rack was established on}thebasis _ofthe

by EcoLab Inc. The water and sewage charges were based on per 1000 gallon basis as

it is the standard measure suggested _by the _county and public service offices. The

constants of 1.2gallons per rack tocomputewaterand sewage costs wereestablished on

thebasis ofthe Hobart Manual specification. A default values of$1.590000 and

$ 1.150000 for the cost of water per 1000 gallons and sewage cost per 1000 gallons

respectively were established onthe basis ofthe ratesprovided _by the Monroe _County

offices andthe_cityofRochesterpurewaterdepartment. The_energyconstantof0.1 121

was established for _electricity used _by the largest Hobart machine. A default value of

$0.099410 for Electric cost per kw.hr. was established as it was the nearest to the

industry standard and from the _electricity rates provided _by the Rochester Gas and

Electric _Company (See Appendix E).

The _formulas, then derived to compute the cost of_utilities, detergents/ rinse additives

were as follows:

Cost of_utilities, detergents/ rinse additives = Cost_{ofdetergents/rinse}

additives + _Electricity cost + Water cost + Sewage cost

Detergents/Rinse add cost = Cost_{per rack x} No _ofRacks _{per year}

l.Number ofRacksper year = _a+b+c+d+e

a.No.oflarge platesper period/25(per rack)xno.ofdataperiods/year

b.No.ofsmallplatesperdataperiod/35(perrack)x no. ofdataperiods/year

c.No.of glasses per data period/45(perrack)x no. ofdataperiods/year

d.No.ofsilverware perdataperiod/240(perrack)x no. ofdataperiod/year

(Utensils perrack _accordingto the _{Hobart manual)}

Electricity Cost = _{Cost perkw hr.}

xNo.ofracks per year x 0.1121*

[*Calculated energy constant for largest Hobart machine hour (as per

Hobart manual)]

Water Cost = _{Costper 1000}

gal. xNo.ofracks per year x 1.2 gallonsper rack*

(*as per Hobart _manual)

Sewage Cost = _{Costper 1000gal. xNo.ofracksper year x 1}

.2 gallonsper rack.

Theindependentvariablesidentifiedandlistecftoderivetheformulasforother costswere

as follows: Cost of reusable ware _inventory, Annual breakage and replacement _cost,

Refuse disposal costper data period, Trash bags or can liners cost per dataperiod.

The cost of reusable_inventory is the original cost of all the reusable ware used

intheoperation. Thisvariablewasincludedtocorrespondto thecost ofdisposableware

so as tohavea valid comparison of costs. The datawouldbe easily available fromthe

invoices orestimates could be acquired.

Adefaultvalueof25% was establishedforannualbreakageand replacement cost.

This defaultvalue was derivedfrom theestimatesand actual data from the_industrythat

thereis a 100% replacementofreusable wareover a period offouryears. Although the

annual cost of inventory is calculated according to the accounting standards used for

depreciation, that is 10 years. The ratio constant of2.9 to 1.0 forrefuse disposal cost

ofdisposablewareto reusableware was established onthebasisoftheinitial study. The

same ratio constant wasused to measure cost oftrashbags. Theformulas derived were

Other Costs = Annual _{cost of reusable ware}

inventory + Annual breakage

and replacement cost 4- Annual refusedisposal cost + annual cost oftrashbags

Annual cost of reusable ware _Inventory= _{Cost of}

Inventory / No.of years(10

years fordepreciation).

Annual breakage and replacement cost = _{Cost of Reusable}

inventory x

25_%( Defaultvalue).

Cost of Refuse Disposal = _{Cost of disposal per data period x No. of data}

periods per year.

Cost of trash bags= _{No.of Trash bags per data period x Cost of each x}

No.of Dataperiods per year.

Oncethecosts in each section were_computed, theformulas were set_up to computethe

total costs of each ware:

Annualcost_{for using}disposableware =_{Disposable Ware Cost + Labor Cost +}

Machinery, Equipmentand Related costs + Cost of_Utilities, Detergents/Rinse

Additives + Other Costs.

Annual costfor_using reusable ware = _{Laborcost + Machinery,Equipment and}

related costs + Cost of_Utilities, Detergents/Rinse additives + OtherCosts.

The average cost per meal andaverage cost per dataperiod were calculated asfollows:

Average cost per meal = _{Total annual costdivided}

by the number ofmeals

served per year

Average costper dataperiod = _{Total annual costs divided}

by Number ofdata

A _summaryofthemathematical formulas isgivenin table3. Thevariables were

thus, identifiedandlisted andtheformulas werederived with appropriatedefaultvalues

decided _upon, the cost evaluation model was computerized_by aconsultant.

Spreadsheet design and development

Thecost evaluation modelwasbasedonLotus 1-2-3 spreadsheet programbecause

it is a _{widely used,} user _friendly program and was also suggested _by the sponsors.

Theprogram's design and operation specifications were as follows:

l.The program wouldbe based upon the 1969 Laventhol & Horwath cost

evaluation model.

2.Theprogram would be run on an IBM or IBM compatible _{PC, preferably} on

a286based lap-top.

3. Theprogram would be menu driven.

4. Theprogram would be operable_by anyonewithout specialized computer

training.

5. Theprogram wouldbe applicable to all foodserviceoperations.

6. Theprogram would havethe cost variables (and have the appropriatedefault

valuesforsomeinputvariablesbasedonnationalor_industrystandardsthatcould

beover-written).

7. Theprogram wouldbetestedagainstactual experience of onecommercial and

one non-commercial food service operation.(Stockham, Pandit, Sackler &

Table 3.

Mathematical formulas used in the program

DISPOSABLE WARE COSTS

No.of UtensilsxCostofEachxNo.Of Meals Per Data PeriodxNo.ofData Periods Per

Year.

LABOR COSTS

TotalLabor Costs Per DataPeriodxNo. ofDataPeriodsperYear.

MACHINERY,EQUIPMENTANDRELATED COSTS

YearlyOriginal Costof_Machinery =_{OriginalCostofMachinery/Lifeof}

Machinery(10

Years)

RepairsandMaintenanceCosts =

Table 3 (Contd.)

A^thprnatical formulas usedin the program

COST OFDETERGENTS,RINSE ADDITIVES ANDUTILITIES

DetergentandRinse Additivescost perRackxNo.ofracks perYear

NumberofRacksperYear =_{a +b + c + d+-e}

a.No.of Largeplates perdataperiod/25(Platesperrack)*

xNo.of Dataperiods

per year.

b. No.of Smallplates perdataperiod/35(Platesperrack)*

xNo.of Dataperiods

peryear.

c.No.of Glassesperdataperiod/45(Glassesperrack)*

xNo.ofDataperiods per

year.

d. No.of Silverwareperdataperiod/240(Silverwareperrack)*

xNo.ofData

periods per year.

e. No.of Meal Traysperdataperiod/13 (Mealtraysperrack)*

xNo.of Data

periods per year.

[* _{Utensils per rack}

according to the 1991 Hobart Foodservice Equipment

Manual.]

ElectricityCost=_{Costperkw.hr.xTotalno.of racks per year x0.1121 (kw}

.per_rack*)

[?Calculatedenergyconstantforthelargest Hobart_{dishwashing machine]}

Waterand Sewagecost = _{Costper 1000}

gallonsxTotal no.of racks per year x 1.2

gallons per rack*.

Table 3 _(Contd.)

Mathematical formulas used inthe program

OTHERCOSTS

Annualcost of reusable ware_inventory=_Costof

inventory/lifeof_inventory(10years).

Annualbreakageand replacement costs = _Cost

of reusable ware_inventoryx2555 per

year(Default).

Costof refusedisposal= _{Costofdisposalper}

dataperiod xNo.of dataperiods per year.

Costoftrashbags =_{No.oftrashbagsperdataperiod xCost}

of eachtrash_bagxNo.of

dataperiods per year.

AVERAGE COST PER MEAL =_TotalAnnual

CostofEach Ware/NumberofMeals

ServedperYear.

AVERAGE COST PER PERIOD =_{TotalAnnualCostofEach Ware}

/NumberofData

Thesoftware consultantcomputerized themodelina spreadsheetformat with the

helpoftheLotus 1-2-3 software andinserted thederivedformulas andthedefaultvalues

in thedesignatedcellsofthespreadsheet. Thedefaultvalues couldbeoverwrittenifthe

actual data was available. The computerizedmodel was tested with datagathered from

the local school cafeterias and a commercial foodservice operation. _During thecourse

of_testing the computerized model itwas noticed that the use ofthis model was limited

to systems equippedwith theLotusspreadsheet softwareand would not run on_anyother

system. To enhance the _{compatibility} of the program it was decided to compile the

program with the BalerXe compiler software. When theprogram was compiled it ran

successfully on _anyIBM or comaptibles withoutthe_necessary software

requiredinitially. Thecompiled programalso reducedthestepsinthe_start-upprocedures

by linking different _key functions to one orfew _key functions.

Several testswere run on theprogram and theprogram worked as designed and

gave expected results. The program could print a summary report _containing a cover

letter, summary of costs and a cost evaluation worksheet after the completion of data

Table 4

Cover letter.

{RESTAURANT NAME} 12-Dec-91

{STREET ADDRESS} {CITY, STATE, ZIP}

DEAR {CONTACT NAME WITH _PREFIX}

Thank you for _giving the Foodservice Coalition for a Better Environment

the opportunity to perform this cost comparison analysis. We have

evaluated the cost differences between your use of disposable ware and reusable ware.

~

In _any such analysis, there are _many variables that must be considered.

We have _carefully reviewed the aspects of your operation, and have

included those variables that _directly impact your costs. Where variables

of importance were needed but not _supplied, we have incorporated _industry

averages.

The following is a _summary of the costs associated with your operation:

DISPOSABLE REUSABLE SAVINGS TO

WARE WARE USE REUSABLE

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS $0 $0 $0

AVERAGE COST PER MEAL ERR ERR ERR

AVERAGE COST/DATA PERIOD ERR ERR ERR

We are pleased to have been of service. We welcome the _opportunity to

discuss these findings with you and to answer any questions you _{may have.}

Sincerely,

Phillip S. Cooke

Executive Director

Table 4 _(Contd.)

Summary of costs.

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY SCHOOL OF FOOD, HOTEL & TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

SUMMARY OF COSTS

COMPANY NAME: {RESTAURANT NAME} CONTACT NAME: {CONTACT NAME WITH PREF

TITLE: _{{DESIGNATION}} ADDRESS: {STREET _ADDRESS}

CITY/STATE/ZIP: _{{CITY, STATE, ZIP}}

IX}

BUSINESS: {TYPE}

DATE: 12-Dec-91

CATAGORY OF COST

DISPOSABLE WARE

REUSABLE WARE

COST % COST %

DISPOSABLE WARE COSTS 0 ERR N/A

LABOR COSTS 0 ERR 0 ERR

MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT & RELATED COSTS 0 ERR 0 ERR

UTILITIES, DETERGENTS /RINSE ADDITIVES N/A 0 ERR

OTHER COSTS 0 ERR 0 ERR

TOTAL ANNUAL COSTS 0 100% 0 100%

TOTAL ANNUAL COST SAVINGS $0

1

1

i

1 1

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

THIS PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED WITH SUPPORT FROM THE

FOODSERVICE COALITION FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT.

Table 4 _(Contd.)

Cost evaluation worksheet.

ROCHESTER INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF _FOOD, HOTEL & TRAVEL MANAGEMENT

COMPUTERIZED COST EVALUATION WORKSHEET

COMPANY NAME: {RESTAURANT _NAME} BUSINESS:

==

CONTACT NAME: {CONTACT NAME WITH _PREFIX}

TITLE: _{{DESIGNATION} {TYPE}}

ADDRESS: {STREET _ADDRESS}

CITY/STATE/ZIP: {CITY, STATE, ZIP} DATE:

ITEM DISPOSABLE REUSABLE

WARE WARE

VOLUME

NUMBER OF MEALS SERVED/DATA PERIOD 0 0 COST EACH

NUMBER OF DATA PERIODS/YEAR 0 0 FOR

NUMBER OF UTENSILS PER MEAL DISPOSABLES

LARGE PLATES 0.0 0.0 $0.0000

SMALL PLATES/BOWLS 0.0 0.0 $0.0000

GLASSES 0.0 0.0 $0.0000

SILVERWARE 0.0 0.0 $0.0000

MEAL TRAYS 0.0 0.0 $0.0000

LABOR COSTS

AVERAGE HOURLY WAGE FOR WARE $0.00 $0.00

WASHING/HANDLING EMPLOYEES

EMPLOYEE BENEFITS $0.00 $0.00

(DEFAULT TO 17% OF _WAGES)

TOTAL HOURLY LABOR COST $0.00 $0.00

AVERAGE NUMBER OF HOURS SPENT 0.0 0.0

WASHING/HANDLING PER DATA PERIOD

TOTAL LABOR COSTS PER DATA PERIOD $0.00 $0.00

MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT AND RELATED COSTS

ORIGINAL COST OF MACHINERY AND $0

EQUIPMENT (INCLUDING _{INSTALLATION)}

MONTHLY LEASE COST OF EQUIPMENT $0

AVERAGE LIFE OF MACHINERY/EQUIPMNT 10

(IN _YEARS, FOR DEPRECIATION _EXPENSE)

ANNUAL REPAIRS /MAINTAINANCE COSTS $0

(USUALLY 5% OF YEARLY DEPRECIATION _EXPENSE)

$0

$0

10

$0

COST OF UTILITIES, DETERGENTS/RINSE ADDITIVES

DETERGENT/RINSE/ADD

-COST/RACK

ELECTRIC - COST PER KILLOWATT HOUR

WATER - COST PER 1000 GALLONS

SEWAGE CHARGE - _{PER 1000} GALLONS

N/A $0 040000 N/A $0 099410 N/A $1 590000 N/A $1 150000

OTHER COSTS

COST OF REUSABLE WARE INVENTORY N/A $0

ANNUAL BREAKAGE & REPLACEMENT COST $0 $0

REFUSE DISPOSAL COST/DATA PERIOD $0.00 $0.00

(DISPOSABLES USUALLY REQUIRE 2.9X THE REUSABLE REFUSE _COLLECTION)

Questionnaire design and development

Theinitialquestionnairedesigned togetthedata for_testingthe model was tested

and found to be inadequate in