summary > client product

summary > PERSONAS

the opportunity

the opportunity

opportunity > scenario

our test > hypothesis 1

hy 1 > plan

hy 1 > results

hy 1 > recommendations

our test > hypothesis 2

hy 2 > design work

hy 2 > results

→ → →

hy 2 > test data

hy 2 > recommendations

our test > hypothesis 3

hy 3 > plan

hy 3 > restaurant personas

hy 3 > restaurant personas

hy 3 > restaurant personas

hy 3 > restaurant personas

hy 3 > design work

hy 3 > next steps

conclusion

conclusion

…

APPENDIX to Final Presentation (9/12/14)Glossary & References ......................................................................................... page A0

Research Summary Draft.01- July 25, 2014 (http://goo.gl/Ss7dmf) ................. page A1

Design & Test Plan- August 6, 2014 (http://goo.gl/Oo06oe) .............................. page A11

Design & Test Plan – Final (http://goo.gl/Eum3MM) .......................................... page A14

Patron & Draft version 3 (http://goo.gl/dFsCfB) ................................................. page A27

Appendix items were created by the emagineeers from July 21 - September 12, 2014

- Charlie Collick- Tasha Pruess- AJ Polanco

GLOSSARY

Table Layout - Table layouts help restaurants organize and track tables.

Patron - Individuals that pay for restaurant services.

Customer - Restaurant establishments that purchase point-of-sale systems.

Fast Casual Dining - Also called quick-casual and limited service, these restaurants offer better quality food than quick-service restaurants, but with less expensive menu items than full-service restaurants. Items range between $7-$10. Patrons will often walk up to a service counter and place their order. Examples include: Chipotle, Panera Bread.

Casual Dining - These types of restaurants are typically more affordable and often geared toward families. They offer full table service but the decor, food and service is usually less remarkable than a fine dining establishment. Items range between $10-15 depending upon the geographic areas. Patrons are seated by host/hostess. Examples include: Chili’s, Outback Steakhouse.

Quick Service Dining - These types of restaurants capitalize on speed of service and conve-nience. They are also characterized by simple decor, inexpensive food items and speedy service. Items cost $6 or less. They often provide “combo” meal choices which can add on extra for sides and drinks, but food items are also available a la carte. Patrons will place their order with a cashier. Examples include: Wendy’s, Starbucks.

Fine Dining - These restaurants tops all others in terms of service and quality. They usually gain perceived value with unique and beautiful decor, renowned chefs and special dishes. Items are often priced $20 or more. Regarding service style, well-trained and experienced servers and sommeliers attend to patrons by providing excellent knowledge of foods and wines. Examples include: Morton’s, Ruth’s Chris

Traditional Restaurant Service - Is defined as entering an establishment, being seated, and completing an order with a member of the waitstaff.

Floating Patron - Patrons who freely move throughout a quick serviceestablishment without having a designated seat.

Image from www.partech.com PAR Restaurant EverServ TSR Table Layout ScreenAn Overview of Different Restaurant Types by Monica Parpal. http://www.foodservicewarehouse

Image from: http://www.archiexpo.com/prod/axeos/support-bollards-tablet-66460-1288253.html

An Overview of Different Restaurant Types by Monica Parpal. http://www.foodservicew

REFERENCES

A0

emagineers RESEARCH SUMMARY­ DRAFT .01 (July 25, 2014) Charlie Collick | AJ Polanco | Tasha Pruess 1. A summation statement that explains what area you would like to focus your design work on based on your research, and why. A. Definition: We are still looking for a good definition of POS

https://www.google.com/#q=definition:point+of+sale

a. Point­of­Sale (POS) System: i. Critical tool in the restaurant industry ii. Point of sale (POS) systems are electronic systems that provide businesses

with the capability to retain and analyze a wide variety of inventory and transaction data on a continuous basis

B. Industry Numbers/Statistics:

a. Restaurant.org­ Here are some statistics regarding the restaurant industry according to the National Restaurant Association:

i. In 2014, restaurant industry sales will be $683.4 billion dollars; ii. There are 990,000 restaurant locations in the U.S.; iii. There are 13.5 million restaurant employees, which makes up 10% of the

overall U.S. workforce. b. Reportlinker.com: The global point of sale industry is expected to reach $3.2 billion in

sales according to TechNavio.

C. emaginePOS Competitors: a. Well Established: Micros, Aloha(NCR), Digital Dining, Positouch,

Infogenesis(Agylisis), Matre D, Squirrel, Restaurant Manager (Action Systems), Future POS, Adelo, Dinerware

b. Newcomers on the radar: Revel, Leaf( Heartland Payment Systems), Silver(NCR), Clover(First Data), Square Register, ShopKeep, Vend, Breadcrumb, Lightspeed

D. User Research / Interviews:

During the week of July 21st, the emagineers interviewed with restaurant professionals. Upon performing interviews with GM’s and wait staff of local quick service restaurants & one Chief Operating Officer of an NYC restaurant, we determined that there were some common themes within our results. User’s of POS systems want technology that eliminates bottlenecks that include only 1 person having control of 70% of the systems functionality. Users also want multiple paths to the same tasks, maximum up time, and ease of use. Furthermore, we determined 3 key functions that a Point­of­Sale’s table layout must perform. It must:

(1) Manage the table (2) Make sure that the ordering process is completed (3) Display the way that the staff is organized

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 1 A1

D. User Research / Interviews (cont’d):

The following scenario was posed to explain the importance of these 3 functions:

If you are working on a busy Friday night, you do not want to be bottlenecked by having only one server assigned to 6 tables. The table layout should provide a way to divvy up the tables amongst multiple servers. This can reduce a customer’s wait time from 2 hours to 30 minutes.

E. Research takeaways:

The primary takeaway was that users are in need of a revolutionary system that will allow them to track individual customers as they move through a space rather than track the space itself. We also heard that the ability to quickly change spaces based not on the layout of your brick and mortar floor plan, but spaces such as parking lots, patio areas, stadiums, festivals, street fairs, and concerts was important. We want to explore the use of location based applications, GPS, NFC, and AR technologies to help solve the industry wide problem of tracking customers through an open social space.

2. A summary of your research method(s) and source(s). This could include secondary sources such as newspaper articles, journal reports, book references, and Internet content. They could also include primary sources such as information gathered from the client or taking to restaurant workers. Our first phase of research consisted of formally compiling information on the Internet. Here is the list of website that I found to have valuable information:

National Research Association: www.restuarant.org/Home Hospitality Technology: www.hosptalitytechnology.edgl.com ReportLinker.com: All the market research you need: www.reportlinker.com Software Advice­ The Authority on Software Selection:

http://www.softwareadvice.com/retail/ Our second phase of research consisted of informal interviews with 4 current GM’s of local area bars, 2 local food trucks, and 1 pizzeria. Our research also included 1 informal interview with a COO of an NYC quick service restaurant ­ who also had experience managing a national chain of restaurants.

We developed an interview guide (see Addendum “Client Questions.pdf”) that changed over the course of the week based on what we were hearing from the users. The questions were specific enough to table layout that we were able to can great insight as to the current gaps and holes in table layout design. The questions were also broad enough to ensure that we were not missing any crucial details that may have been left out if we focused on table layout alone.

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 2 A2

3. A listing of the alternative options you considered, and the pros and cons of each. It should be clear why the option you selected is more preferable than the others you considered. The table format will be customizable to the restaurant establishment in these ways:

Type of Restaurant: Fast Food, Fast Casual Dining, Café, Pub, Casual Style Dining, Fine Dining;

Dimensions of the Restaurant: Width, Depth & Length Shape of the Restaurant: Square, Rectangle, Oval, Circle, Other Number of tables Types of tables: Booth, Rectangle, Square, Circle, Oval Table Dimensions: Width & Length How many seats at each table type Additional Restaurant Attributes: Doors & Entrance/Exit, Windows, Kitchen,

Hostess Station, Bar, Other Other POS features we considered:

Mobile payment options Additional hardware (tickers, tablets, etc.) Customer facing ordering applications Voice recognition Real­time Ticker for Alerts (ex. Dirty Table, Long Customer Wait)

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 3 A3

ADDENDUMS:

Document Name: “HT­ Hospitality Technology”

Hosptialtechnology.edgl.com 2014 POS Software Trends by Dorothy Creamer, Managing Editor, December 12, 2013

http://hospitalitytechnology.edgl.com/news/2014­POS­Software­Trends89890

Supports feedback from participant that Charlie interviewed who want to move in the mobile direction:

Hospitality Technology’s annual POS Software Trends Report polls restaurant operators about the major business drivers influencing point of sale technology and asked them about the functionality they’ll be shopping for in their next POS upgrade. This year’s results overwhelmingly indicate that restaurant operators and suppliers alike are focusing on mobile POS strategies, and looking to add everything from mobile payments to tablet­based ordering to their repertoires.

When asked to choose top features they’re seeking in the next POS update, Mobility with 45.8%, naming mobile phone integration as a top pick; Tablet integration­ 44.1% Tableside POS for ordering and/or payment (42.2%) Mobile wallet integration­ 35.6%

HT reached out to the POS software vendor for the updates and 26 leading companies provided insight: AGILYSYS, ARIERUS, ALDELO SYSTEMS, APRIVAASI/RESTAURANT MANAGER, BRINK POS, CUSTOM BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, DINERWARE, FUTURE POS INC, GRANBURY RESTAURANT SOLUTIONS, HARBORTOUCH, HP/HEWLITT PACKARD, MENUSOFT/DIGITAL DINING, MIRCROS, MICROSOFT, NCR CORPORATION/RADIANT SYSTEMS, PARTECH INC.,PC AMERICA, POSERA, REVEL SYSTEMS, SILVERWARE POS INC., SPEEDLINE SOLUTIONS, SQUIRREL SYSTEMS, VIVONENT, WAND, XPIENT

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 4 A4

Document Name: “Interview Guide” Interview Guide Emagine POS Draft #1 7/22 Interviewees: ∙ GM for Olive Branch – New Brunswick, NJ ∙ GM for Old Man Rafferty’s – New Brunswick, NJ ∙ Former server/Asst. Mgr Applebee’s – North Brunswick, NJ ∙ GM/Owner for 33’s Tavern – South River, NJ ∙ Manager for Piazza Orsillo – Somerset, NJ ∙ Employees of 4 RU food trucks around campus – New Brunswick/Piscataway, NJ Purpose of Interview: Gain insight about POS systems currently being used in our client’s market. Develop understanding as to how decision makers at quick service establishments chose POS systems. Determine important attributes of POS system functionality that matters to current customers. Explore “wishlist” features that establishment owners would like to see as part of future POS systems. Discuss current table layout features in POS systems. Questions: ∙ The last POS system that you purchased was when? o What prompted the choice to find a new POS system? o What features were you looking for in your decision? o What factors went into making your final decision? o Are you satisfied with your current choice? o Quickly name the best/worst 3 features of current system? o How does table layout work in your current system? ∙ If you were the decision maker for a new POS system company, what are some features you would like to see? ∙ How cumbersome is it to change or customize the table layout? ∙ How do you change your physical layout? How often? Why? ∙ What features associated with table layout are needed? ∙ What are the greatest challenges to using table layout to manage customer interaction? ∙ Have you ever explored mobile applications either for staff or customers? What and Why? ∙ Have you ever used location based applications for your business? Why or why not? ∙ What sort of back room reporting is important to you? How often do you access this information?

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 5 A5

Document Name: “Research - Raw Data (7/22)”

Grand grey solutions Table Layouts are all fixed plans - Utilized more in full service casual, not Fast casual / QSR Function of the Table Layout: 1) Manage the table 2) Make sure that the ordering process is completed 3) Way staff is organized Friday night? Don’t want a 2 hour wait. - Want people seated in 30 minutes - If one server is assigned to 6 tables, it’s going to be slow Can assign people to a table via Point of Sale system, If you have 3 servers, will divide for 3 servers - Not all servers will be there all night, so charcoal plans may not work anymore Green is optimal Red = waiting for something. Or something is going wrong. EVENT as USE CASE: - Can drag and drop tables and move them around. - Should be able to create a use-case on your own Painpoints with Firefly? - More steps that cashier has to take, the less time spent servicing the guests - Protocol was cumbersome - Could do things in 10 steps Swiply - analytics Microsystems, Aloha, POSitouch, The POS is where transactions occur. You’re entering data and pulling data out. Then you distribute the data. Inventory – make a recipe What you don’t like about it is that it’s a general design. To look at efficiencies,

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 6 A6

What is the bandwidth capcity? Does the system lose memory efficiency of the product if you have 12000 orders? How many SKUs can you support? Firefly has an infinite SKU System only has a certain amount of memory space. Spec Suggested Hardware set? Notifications Page. Dashboard that shows how many transactions are taking place, you know what your sales are, show occupancies 4 people at a 4­top table. + When you put the orders, Dashboard for Hostess, Server Manager. No separation between menu items and menu products. Burgers > Sub­categories + Would like there to be a process. It’s not about working faster. But it’s creating a system that everyone is efficient at. It can be replicated and taught. Hospitality Tech Magazine. DESIGN CHALLENGE: ­ Improve or change what can be done with the Table Layout Function of the Table: 1) Manage the table 2) Make sure that the ordering process is completed 3) Way staff is organized CHANGES on the FLY? ­ Send notification to another admin?

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 7 A7

Document Name: “Research - Raw Data (7/22-23)” The last POS system that you purchased was when? POS systems are bought with the intention of lasting in an around 5 - 10 years of time. My inquiry showed a range of previous purchase times ranging from 6 months earlier - 15+ years ago. o What prompted the choice to find a new POS system? There was a wide variety of answers here but a common theme was a need for more “up time” and also to empower lower level staff with common issues that get bottlenecked at the MGR level (voids, 86ing, comps, shift change, table layout, etc.) o What features were you looking for in your decision? ease of use, cost, upkeep and support contract, reliability, hardware, versatility, customizability, customer applications!!! o What factors went into making your final decision? Cost, reliability, and ease of use o Are you satisfied with your current choice? Most were satisfied in the way that it is a necessary evil. I got the vibe from most that “there are bigger fish to fry” o Quickly name the best/worst 3 features of current system? BEST: cost, support, mobile, easy to use, familiar, build to spec, it works WORST: reliability, lack of support, bad touch screen, can’t scroll, slow, lack of multi path, hard to change/update o How does table layout work in your current system? -Some had “hardcoded” layouts although i don’t believe them, doesn’t make sense. -Clunky, hard to interpret, different views for server and host. -Hard to change layout -not many options -doesn’t account for “floaters MAJOR TAKEAWAYS -need for customer facing POS - Payment - interactivity -UP time is key, -easy to use/learn/teach -multiple paths to same goal -checkpoints at “no return” points (before sending to kitchen, changing price) -incorporate host of technologies -new hardware -limit bottlenecks -change space -track individuals -AR for table layout?

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 8 A8

Document Name: “Research Summary A”

During the week of July 21st, the emagineers interviewed with restaurant professionals. Based on our research, we determined that there are 3 key functions that a Point-of-Sale’s (POS) table layout must perform. It must:

(1)Manage the table (2)Make sure that the ordering process is completed (3)Display the way that the staff is organized

The following scenario was posed to explain the importance of these 3 functions:

If you are working on a busy Friday night, you do not want to be bottlenecked by having only one server assigned to 6 tables. The table layout should provide a way to divvy up the tables amongst multiple servers. This can reduce a customer’s wait time from 2 hours to 30 minutes.

In terms of usability: A table layout should allow for a user to drag-and-drop tables to move them around the User Interface. Additionally, the POS should afford the user the ability to independently create multiple use-cases – i.e. without the need for assistance from emaginePOS.

In terms of the table-layout displayed on Slide 25 of the Rutgers UXD Practicum Kickoff PPT, our interviewee spoke about how color can be indicative of the state of a table. (Green is optimal, red means that a customer is waiting for something or that something is going wrong.) From this, the idea of providing the customer with a means to interface with the POS / Table layout was generated.**

Outside of these 3 functions, the interview became less focused about table layout. From this more general POS conversation, we learned that having too many steps preceding checkout is a very real pain-point. More steps for a cashier = less time servicing a guest.

Incidentally, our interviewee did not appreciate the fact that there was no coherent/logical “flow” to the ordering process. “First off, I would like to see categories. Like ‘Burgers,’ for example. Then it should list drink options or have the ability to go back.” In light of this latest comment, the interviewee mentioned that the additional steps introduced by a “flow” were acceptable. Additionally, we were able to gleam the following “nugget:”

[A successful Point-of-sale] is not about working faster… It’s creating a system that everyone is efficient at. [Its functions] can be replicated and taught.

Our research consisted of 1 informal interview with a COO of an NYC quick service restaurant - who also had experience managing a national chain of restaurants.

**Could this be a button on a customer’s table? An auxillary emaginePOS mobile application that is provided to “premium” emaginePOS customers, perhaps? Just idle ideation for future design possibilities.

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 9 A9

Document Name: “Research Summary B”

Based on our research we believe that emaginePOS should begin to explore the world of customer facing applications and individual client tracking. Upon performing interviews with GM’s and wait staff of local quick service restaurants, we quickly determined that there were some common themes within our results. User’s of POS systems want technology that eliminates bottlenecks that include only 1 person having control of 70% of the systems functionality. Users also want multiple paths to the same tasks, maximum up time, and ease of use. As for table layout, our primary takeaway was that users are in need of a revolutionary system that will allow them to track individual customers as they move through a space rather than track the space itself. We also heard that the ability to quickly change spaces based not on the layout of your brick and mortar floor plan, but spaces such as parking lots, patio areas, stadiums, festivals, street fairs, and concerts was important. We want to explore the use of location based applications, GPS, NFC, and AR technologies to help solve the industry wide problem of tracking customers through an open social space.

Our research consisted of informal interviews with 4 current GM’s of local area bars, 2 local food trucks, and 1 pizzeria. We developed an interview guide (see attachment #1) that changed over the course of the week based on what we were hearing from the users. The questions were specific enough to table layout that we were able to can great insight as to the current gaps and holes in table layout design. The questions were also broad enough to ensure that we were not missing any crucial details that may have been left out if we focused on table layout alone.

We had many features we wanted to pursue such as customer facing order applications, mobile payment options, voice recognition, optional hardware, and more. We moved away from these technologies not because they are less important, but because they do not directly relate to our task at hand, which is to revolutionize table layout design for POS systems.

emagineers - Research Summary Assignment - Page 10 A10

emagineers Design & Test Plan [emaginePOS] (August 6, 2014) Charlie Collick | AJ Polanco | Tasha Pruess

1. The hypothesis / hypotheses (one or more questions that are testable & measurable)

Hypothesis #1: Given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self­service kiosks over traditional restaurant service**

Hypothesis #2: Patrons who use self­service kiosks will have their orders sent to the cooking staff 50% faster than those who choose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service**

a. An explanation of why this hypothesis is valuable to the people who use the system

Assuming that the time an order is sent to the cooking staff is directly related to the time that an order is completed, Patrons who use the self­service kiosk will be able to have their food served quicker than those that use traditional restaurant service.

b. An explanation of why this hypothesis is valuable to the business

If 50% of patrons choose self­service kiosks over traditional restaurant service, then that logically supports the argument that the general manager of the restaurant can operate his/her establishment with 50% less waitstaff. For Example: If we assume that X restaurant has 10 employees on its waitstaff at any given time, the GM will only need to pay 5 employee salaries vs 10 salaries. This potential cost savings is tremendous, especially if we make the assumption that the self­service kiosks will only result in a one­time purchase & installation cost.

Relevant concepts that this test does not address:

Expediting checkout processes will result in a decrease in wait time for new arrivals. As a result, we believe that walk­aways at the door will decrease by at least 25%.

**Traditional restaurant service is defined here as entering an establishment, being seated, and completing order with a member of the waitstaff. We will determine the average amount of time it takes by observing this process at a mix of establishments.

A11

2. A description of what you will design a. The functions it will include and will not include

Will include –

Ability to track the individual patron Quick compile/split function for easy payment “Token” hardware for each unique visitor Customer facing ordering screen (Kiosks) Color­coding for customer order phase (waiting, order placed, waiting for check, etc.)

Will not include –

Mobile payment options (maybe?) mobile ordering app(maybe?) menu organization Hard fixed table layouts Top down view of establishment and each section

b. The kind of prototype (e.g. looks­like, works­like, conceptual…) with a clear explanation of why you chose this

Our prototype will be a “works­like” prototype, because our main intention is to test usability vs aesthetics (i.e. “looks­like”).

The prototype will be a touch pad interface that customers can use to directly place orders to the bar or kitchen. It will work in a similar fashion to other customer order applications. A patron will enter the establishment and immediately approach an order kiosk, place their initial and pay. Once the transaction is complete, the customers are given a token and/or directed to their table. The actual prototype will be built out as a clickable PDF in Balsamiq. We will build out several paths with the prototype to allow the patron to get a good feel for how the application will function. We will not only collect quantitative data for the timed tests, we want to also gain insight into the experience through the words of the patron.

c. The level of fidelity

Mid Fidelity ­ Our prototype will be a low fidelity mock up in the sense that the styling, coloring, and layout will be chosen later, but the fidelity to the experience of walking through an order process with a touch pad rather than a waiter will be high fidelity (in a restaurant setting, working with touch pad not PC, maybe mount the iPad? I would also say that our actual navigation of the application will be high fidelity as well because we want to create an experience for the patron that will come as close to the real thing as possible.

d. The level of detail

The detail will be enough to test the efficacy of the functions and task paths but things like color, layout, font and such may not be included in prototype.

A12

2. A description of what you will design (cont’d) 5. The size, which might be in terms of screens, steps in the experience, etc.

Screen 1: Top down view (traditional top down view of establishment) Screen 2: Wait staff view (1st person view of restaurant space with customer info overlayed) Screen 3: Order screen (Order input screen) Screen 4: Payment screen (multiple depending on path) Screen 5: Customer screen (info pertaining to selected customer)

3. A description of how you will test the design and measure the result a. The test method: We will use the UX research method Usability Study to directly observe how people use self-service kiosks to order their meals at restaurants. This method will allow us to ask questions, probe on their behavior and allow the participants to think out loud, so they can share additional insights as they are using the tool. Candid feedback is always helpful and often sheds light on issues that we would never consider. We will also ask each participant to fill out a post study survey to share demographic information and any other insights about the individual tracking tool.

b. If it is qualitative, quantitative, or a mix, and why you chose this method: Our method, Usability Study, is inherently qualitative because we are gathering the data directly from our test participants. We chose this test method because we want to observe our test participants using self-service ordering kiosk.

c. How you will conduct the test (e.g. with whom, how many people, and the test process): We will conduct our test using 5 test participants in bars and restaurants in New Brunswick and Baltimore’s Camden Yards area. We will ask our test participants to answer one question and then put them through a series of tasks:

Question: We will ask our patrons the following question: When you go to a restaurant, what would you prefer when it comes to ordering your meal: to use a self-service kiosk where you can place your order when you arrive or wait to be seated by a hostess and place your order with your waiter/waitress?

Scenario: We will ask our test participants to use the self-service kiosk to order a meal. It is through this scenario that will ask them to do a set of tasks. As they perform each task, we will ask them questions and request that they think out loud to share feedback & insights.

d. How you will measure the results: We will use the performance metrics, task success, time on task and efficiency. Task success will measure how effectively test participant are able to complete a set of tasks that we will define. Time on task will measure the amount of time spent on a task, which is important for tasks that are performed repeatedly. And finally, efficiency will measure the number of discrete actions carried out to complete a task.

We expect the results of our usability study including our performance metrics to validate our hypotheses: that if given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service; and that patrons who use self-service kiosks will receive their order 50% faster than those who choose traditional restaurant service.

A13

DESIGN & TEST PLANSELF-SERVICE SOLUTION FOR BEYOND TABLE LAYOUT

KEY RESULTS:

1. In our test, 80% of patrons, or 8 out 10, would choose the self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service.

2. On average, the time on task for patrons using our mockup was 500% faster than patrons who chose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service.

table of contents

Created on Aug. 20, 2014:

Charlie CollickTasha PruessAJ Polanco

client:

plan - pg.1 design - pg.7 data - pg.9 conclusion - pg.12

design hypotheses:Hypothesis #1: Given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service**

Hypothesis #2: Patrons who use self-service kiosks will have their orders sent to the cooking staff 50% faster than those who choose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service**

Hypothesis #3:

Using traditional POS table layouts is 50% less efficient than tracking customer locations.***

why these hypotheses are valuable to the restaurant staff:Assuming that the time an order is sent to the cooking staff is directly related to the time that an order is completed, Patrons who use the self-service kiosk will be able to have their food served quicker than those that use traditional restaurant service.

One frequent problem that we identified was how quick service establishments deal with “free floating” customers. Many bars and restaurants cater to individuals that are not seated in a fixed space, but rather are encouraged to “float” in a open social space. Locating these customers when

their order is complete tends to be a problem for establishments that allow it.

While conducting our field study, we found that there was not a one size fits all solution to this problem, but rather each business finds its own solution. These solutions are usually clunky and do not rely on technology. We feel our model for tracking patrons by the individual rather than space will allow for quicker, more efficient service for both “floating patrons” as well as your traditional customer.

plan - 01

why these hypotheses are valuable to patrons:If 50% of patrons choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service, then that logically supports the argument that the general manager of the restaurant can operate his / her establishment with 50% less waitstaff.

For Example: If we assume that X restaurant has 10 employees on its wait staff at any given time, the GM will only need to pay 5 employee salaries vs 10 salaries. This potential cost savings is tremendous, especially if we make the assumption that the self-service kiosks will only result in a one-time purchase & installation cost.

relevant concepts that our tests do not address:Expediting checkout processes will result in a decrease in wait time for new arrivals. As a result, we believe that walk-aways at the door will decrease by at least 25%.

** Traditional restaurant service is defined here as entering an establishment, being seated, and completing order with a member of the waitstaff. We will determine the average amount of time it takes by observing this process at a mix of establishments.

*** Although we were able to conduct field research to determine that there is in fact a need for individual based tracking, we were not able to develop a test to prove its efficacy due to lack of time and resources.

plan - 02

plan - 03

design test’s feature set:Will include:

• Hard fixed table layouts• Ability to track the individual patron• Quick compile/split function for easy payment• “Token” hardware for each unique visitor• Customer facing ordering screen (Kiosks)• Color-coding for customer status (waiting, order placed, waiting for check, etc.)• Top down view of establishment and each section

Will not include:

• Mobile payment options• mobile ordering app• menu organization

prototype: explanation and justificationOur prototype will be a “works-like” prototype, because our main intention is to test usability vs aesthetics (i.e. “looks-like”).

The prototype will be a touch pad interface that customers can use to directly place orders to the bar or kitchen. It will work in a similar fashion to other customer order applications. A patron will enter the establishment and immediately approach an order kiosk, place their initial and pay. Once the transaction is complete, the customers are given a token and/or directed to their table. The actual prototype will be built out as a clickable PDF in Balsamiq.

We will build out several paths with the prototype to allow the patron to get a good feel for how the application will function. We will not only collect quantitative data for the timed tests, we want to also gain insight into the experience through the words of the patron.

plan - 04

prototype: level of fidelity + level of detailMid Fidelity

Our prototype will be a low fidelity mock up in the sense that the styling, coloring, and layout will be chosen later, but the fidelity to the experience of walking through an order process with a touch pad rather than a waiter will be high fidelity (in a restaurant setting, working with touch pad not PC, maybe mount the iPad? I would also say that our actual navigation of the application will be high fidelity as well because we want to create an experience for the patron that will come as close to the real thing as possible

Detail

The detail will be enough to test the efficacy of the functions and task paths but things like color, layout, font and such may not be included in prototype.

prototype: size, in terms of screensHypothesis #1 & 2 - Patron Perspective:

Screen 1: Intro screen Screen 2: Select Your DrinkScreen 3: Select Your EntreeScreen 4: Select Your DessertScreen 5: Review Your OrderScreen 6: Check-out Screen

Hypothesis #3 test (servers perspective):

Screen 7-15: Top down view of establishment with hard fixed booths, tables, and stools. Each customer is identified by a “token” which appears on the screen. When an individual customer is selected (by token number or order number), this patron appears on the screen wherever they might be in the restaurant. This mockup would be used to test the efficiency of our system for getting orders out to “floating” patrons, compared to the current mechanism the establishments we test our currently using. For more description of the current systems being used, see attachment “floating patron service description”.

plan - 05

test methodHypothesis #1 & 2

We will use the UX research method Usability Study to directly observe how people use self-service kiosks to order their meals at restaurants. This method will allow us to ask questions, probe on their behavior and allow the participants to think out loud, so they can share additional insights as they are using the tool. Candid feedback is always helpful and often sheds light on issues that we would never consider. We will also ask each participant to fill out a post study survey to share demographic information and any other insights about the individual tracking tool.

Hypothesis #3

We will use the UX research method Usability Study to directly observe how people use self-service kiosks to order their meals at restaurants. This method will allow us to ask questions, probe on their behavior and allow the participants to think out loud, so they can share additional insights as they are using the tool. Candid feedback is always helpful and often sheds light on issues that we would never consider. We will also ask each participant to fill out a post study survey to share demographic information and any other insights about the individual tracking tool.

With more time and resources, we would have set up scenarios in which we could control variables such as # of patrons, servers on duty, the locations of the “floater” patrons, etc. We then would have tested the establishment’s current system for serving these patrons vs. our system for serving the patrons. We would have tested the servers based on time on task, as well as accuracy (delivering the right order to the right patron).

qualitative studyWe chose to perform a Usability Study; i.e. we want to observe our test participants using self-service ordering kiosk. This test method is inherently qualitative because we are gathering the data directly from our test participants.

plan - 06

test conduct / procedureWe will conduct our test using 5 test participants in bars and restaurants in New Brunswick and Baltimore’s Camden Yards area. We will ask our test participants to answer one question and then put them through a series of tasks:

Question: We will ask our patrons the following question: When you go to a restaurant, what would you prefer when it comes to ordering your meal: to use a self-service kiosk where you can place your order when you arrive or wait to be seated by a hostess and place your order with your waiter/waitress?

Scenario: We will ask our test participants to use the self-service kiosk to order a meal. It is through this scenario that will ask them to do a set of tasks. As they perform each task, we will ask them questions and request that they think out loud to share feedback & insights.

measuring the resultsWe will use the performance metrics, task success, time on task and efficiency. Task success will measure how effectively test participant are able to complete a set of tasks that we will define. Time on task will measure the amount of time spent on a task, which is important for tasks that are performed repeatedly. And finally, efficiency will measure the number of discrete actions carried out to complete a task.

We expect the results of our usability study including our performance metrics to validate our hypotheses: that if given a choice, 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service; and that patrons who use self-service kiosks will receive their order 50% faster than those who choose traditional restaurant service.

design - 07

design processWe began our design process with a design studio activity that asked us to sketch the different screens for the patron ordering screen (results below).

Screen 1: Intro screen Screen 2: Select Your Drink Screen 3: Select Your Entree

prototype screens, for hypothesis #1-2 (Client Perspective)

Screen 7-15:

Top down view of establishment with hard fixed booths, tables, and stools. Each customer is identified by a “token” which appears on the screen. When an individual customer is selected (by token number or order number), this patron appears on the screen wherever they might be in the restaurant.

This mockup would be used to test the efficiency of our system for getting orders out to “floating” patrons, compared to the current mechanism the establishments we test our currently using. For more description of the current systems being used, see attachment “floating patron service description”.

design - 08

Screen 4: Select Your Drink Screen 5: Select Your Entree Screen 6: Check-out Screen

prototype screens, for hypothesis #1-2 (cont’d)

prototype screens, for hypothesis #3 (Patron Perspective)

data - 09

test dataTime it takes for patrons to place order using traditional restaurant service.

Restaurant Door to Host (seconds)

Host to Table (seconds)

Table before Waiter (sec)

Water to Order Completion (s)

Total Wait (seconds)

Total Wait (minutes)

Olive Branch 35 20 240 60 355 5.917

Old Man Raffertys

55 45 320 95 515 8.583

Harvest Moon 40 25 140 480 685 11.417

Brother Jimmys

20 20 190 75 305 5.083

World of Beer 0 35 310 50 395 6.583

Average 30 29 240 760 451 7.517

“Would you prefer a self-service kiosk over traditional restaurant service?”

User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 User 7 User 8 User 9 User 10 Total

Yes X X X X X X X X 8No X X 2

Time on Task (in seconds)

User 1 User 2 User 3 User 4 User 5 User 6 User 7 User 8 User 9 User 10 Average (seconds)

Average (minutes)

61 74 124 54 144 71 80 63 109 111 89.1 1.485

data - 10

sample dining experienceTuesday August 5, 2014

• The restaurant is a sports bar with multiple dining areas, including one for outside dining.• My friend & I went into a restaurant, told the hostess dinner for 2, and were seated immediately.• We were seated at 6:31pm.• The waiter came by with water at 6:33pm.• It took us 9 minutes to figure out our order.• At 6:44pm, we ordered an appetizer and two entrees.• At 6:57pm, our appetizer arrived.• At 7:18pm, our entrees arrived.• We asked and received the check at 7:44pm and paid shortly thereafter.• We walked out of the restaurant at 7:51pm.

test resultsHypothesis #1

We created a first design of self-service kiosk ordering application and tested it with 10 partons. Our first hypothesis was: given the choice 50% of patrons will choose self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service. In our test, 80% of patrons, or 8 out 10, would choose the self-service kiosks over traditional restaurant service.

Hypothesis #2

Our second hypothesis was: “Patrons who use self-service kiosks will have their orders sent to the cooking staff 50% faster than those who choose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service.” Surprisingly, our prediction was VASTLY exceeded. On average, the time on task for patrons using our mockup was ~500% faster than patrons who chose to have their orders managed by traditional restaurant service.

data - 11

test results (cont’d)Hypothesis #3

We wanted to test the server side of our system, but first we needed to find out how restaurants currently deal with “floating” patrons.

To that end, we went into 4 quick service establishments that cater to free roaming patrons. Although all of these establishments offer traditional sit-down, waiter service, a good portion of their clientele order food/drinks directly from a bartender. The following are descriptions we received from restaurant servers on they get orders to the correct patrons:

Olive Branch - Bartenders act as both order contact point as well as food runner. Patrons approach a bartender to place an order. Once the food/drink is prepared, the kitchen signals the bartenders (may not be the bartender who originally took the order) by ringing a bell. Once food is picked up from the kitchen, the server will try and locate the patron by pure memory of who placed the order. Since this establishment has no set tables and the allow patrons to freely move about the room, there isn’t any available means of tracking the order to patrons and they must rely on putting an order to a face.

Freddies - This is a bar/restaurant that 80% of their patrons choose to sit at the bar or booth. The other 20% order drinks/food and stand in common areas that include wall mounted counters, free standing cocktail tables, etc. Orders are placed at the bar and when the order is ready, the server/bartender yells out a order number and patrons come to the bar to pick up their order before returning to the common area. Problems with this design include, wrong order pickup, not “finding” the patron (noisy bar), and patrons not knowing their order number.

Harvest Moon - Orders for non seated customers are placed at the bar. Because the patrons in the common space are not seated and lack dedicated tablespace, Harvest moon only allows full service ordering to those seated at a table or at a bar stool. Without a table you are only allowed to order drinks and appetizers, which are then picked up directly from the bar.

Old Bay - Orders for non seated patrons are taken directly by the bartenders. During the order the bartender asks said patron where they will be seated. The food runner locates that patron in the aforementioned area, which seemingly causes issues with patrons not being where they said they were going to be.

conclusion - 12

final thoughtsBased on our findings for hypothesis #1 and #2, we determined that there is significant interest on the part of the patron to have some sort of system that allows the patron to directly put in an order themselves. 8/10 patrons told us that they would be interested in trying out our system if they were given the choice of using a traditional server or ordering from a kiosk inside the establishment. We also confirmed that using a patron facing order system is in fact quicker to get their order to the kitchen/bar than traditional restaurant service.

recommendations for future testingWe would like to further vet our hypotheses by setting up more detailed tests that would account for the following variables that were out of our control:

• patron age,• time of day• location desirability• type of establishment (bar/restaurant)• “type of experience the patron is looking for”

Unfortunately we were not able to actually test hypothesis #3 because of the amount of variables we would not be able to account for. These variables include:

1. Inconsistency in how restaurants deal with getting orders out to floating patrons. 2. The size of a space (large vs small floor plan)3. The use of out-of-date / legacy systems4. Number of patrons per party

Based on the descriptions of how these establishments currently deal with orders from non-seated patrons, and the accounts provided by servers in these establishments, we feel that our system of tracking the customer has validity and would be an attractive feature to your clients. With additional time and resources, we could develop more structured tests to prove this.

Screen 1: Intro screen

A27

Screen 2: Select Your Drink

A28

Screen 3: Select Your Entree

A29

Screen 4: Select Your Drink

A30

Screen 5: Order Summary

A31

Screen 6: Check-out Screen

A32

Screen 7: BOH Main Menu

A33

Screen 8: Table Layout 1

A34

Screen 9: Table Layout 2

A35

Screen 10: Table Layout 3

A36

Screen 11: Table Layout 4

A37

Screen 12: Table Layout 5

A38

Screen 13: Table Layout 6

A39

Screen 14: Table Layout 7

A40

Screen 15: Table Layout 8

A41