British Food Journal

Layout performance indicators and systematic planning: A case study in a

southern Brazilian restaurant
Milena Flessas Vinicius Rizzardi Guilherme Luz Tortorella Diego Fettermann Giuliano A. Marodin
Article information:
To cite this document:
Milena Flessas Vinicius Rizzardi Guilherme Luz Tortorella Diego Fettermann Giuliano A. Marodin ,
(2015),"Layout performance indicators and systematic planning", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8
pp. 2098 - 2111
Permanent link to this document:
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-01-2015-0012
Downloaded on: 27 February 2016, At: 18:04 (PT)
References: this document contains references to 50 other documents.
To copy this document: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
The fulltext of this document has been downloaded 312 times since 2015*
Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:
Emma Zijlstra, Mark P. Mobach, (2011),"The influence of facility layout on operations
explored", Journal of Facilities Management, Vol. 9 Iss 2 pp. 127-144 http://
dx.doi.org/10.1108/14725961111128470
Md. Mohsan Khudri, Saida Sultana, (2015),"Determinants of service quality and impact of service
quality and consumer characteristics on channel selection", British Food Journal, Vol. 117 Iss 8 pp.
2078-2097 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/BFJ-12-2014-0431
Seyed-Mahmoud Aghazadeh, (2005),"Layout strategies for retail operations: A case study",
Management Research News, Vol. 28 Iss 10 pp. 31-46 http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/01409170510785002

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided by emerald-
srm:380560 []
For Authors
If you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then please use our Emerald
for Authors service information about how to choose which publication to write for and submission
guidelines are available for all. Please visit www.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.
About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.com
Emerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society. The company
manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 books and book series volumes, as
well as providing an extensive range of online products and additional customer resources and
services.
 Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partner of the
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and the LOCKSS initiative for
digital archive preservation.

*Related content and download information correct at time of download.

Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

BFJ
117,8
2098
Received 26 January 2015
Revised 23 April 2015
Accepted 5 May 2015
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)
British Food Journal
Vol. 117 No. 8, 2015
pp. 2098-2111
© Emerald Group Publishing Limited
0007-070X
DOI 10.1108/BFJ-01-2015-0012
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
www.emeraldinsight.com/0007-070X.htm
Layout performance indicators
and systematic planning
A case study in a southern Brazilian
restaurant
Milena Flessas and Vinicius Rizzardi
Industrial Engineering Department,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil
Guilherme Luz Tortorella and Diego Fettermann
Systems and Industrial Engineering Department,
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianopolis, Brazil, and
Giuliano A. Marodin
Department of Management Science,
Ohio State University/Fisher College of Business, Columbus, Ohio, USA
Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to plan the layout of the production area of an industrial
kitchen of a theme restaurant through the application of the systematic layout planning (SLP)
methodology and the establishment of layout indicators with a specific application in the restaurant
business.
Design/methodology/approach – The authors applied the SLP methodology in the industrial
kitchen of a theme restaurant in order to plan and develop layout alternatives. Such layout alternatives
were then evaluated according to a set of specific indicators consolidated based on a literature review.
Finally, a multi-criteria decision-making tool was used to support the selection of the best layout
alternative and suggest to the case study area.
Findings – The main results could be highlighted as: first, an area, previously unexplored, of
approximately 5.40 m² ended up being used as a productive area for the operations; second, 40 percent
reduction in work-in-process by removing the refrigerators of groceries and the freezer from the
production area; third, indirect indicators, such as customer satisfaction and the employee’s workplace
environment, have increased their performance, since customers were better served and working
environment became more conducive to a good employee performance.
Originality/value – Most research in layout planning is typically developed in productive industrial
areas, and this paper contributes to the understanding the differences of implementing SLP
methodology in a food service business, such as restaurant, and proposes the utilization of specific
layout indicators.
Keywords MAUT, Performance indicators in restaurants, Systematic layout planning
Paper type Case study
1. Introduction
A layout, according to Slack et al. (2002), is one of the most evident characteristics
of a productive operation, because it determines the “shape” and appearance of its
environment. In carrying out processes, among other factors, greater fluidity in the use of
resources is sought, in order to transform information, personnel or materials into the
marketable final product or service (Hronec, 1994). Therefore, changing the way these
environments are organized directly influences the way processes flow, which evidences
the importance of a good layout for business performance (Bougoure and Lee, 2009).
 In small businesses, processes’ performance is usually observed through an Case study in
empirical analysis (Dora et al., 2013). However, there are methods and tools that apply a southern
for this purpose, providing an objective assessment of the performance of processes.
As stated by Muller (2003), the indicator system has the role of unfolding the strategic
Brazilian
targets to the procedures and return its performance, i.e., to facilitate the application restaurant
of the Plan-Do-Check-Act method to ensure the managerial control over the outcome.
The same goes for improvement projects, which should be planned according to targets 2099
for specific indicators, which will be measured and then analyzed to assess the
performance of the changes made (Ruiz et al., 2014).
The food sector presents few evidences of solutions such as process management,
since small- and medium-sized restaurants rarely have a system that ensures the
measurement of their performance and the action on any deviation (Horng et al., 2013;
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

Ho, 2011). The application of such management methods is frequently hampered by

cultural factors, as structural changes are occasionally needed (Wang and Zhang,
2013). It is not enough to strengthen just one area because the client is serviced by inter-
functional processes (Kavanaugh, 2014) and feels the effect of the worst performance
within these processes. Therefore, one must adopt a continuous improvement approach
in the organization, acting on its critical processes (Rodgers, 2011).
This paper aims to apply the systematic layout planning (SLP) in the kitchen of a
small southern Brazilian restaurant in order to analyze the production and information
flow, formulate layout alternatives and, then, suggest a better physical distribution of
its processes. In addition, the implementation of specific performance indicators, based
on the factors that contribute to improving quality and efficiency in accordance with
the customers’ perspective, to support the kitchen layout alternative decision is
proposed. The best layout alternative is selected through application of a multi-criteria
decision-making tool. Throughout the paper, a theoretical discussion on the subject
will be presented, followed by the proposed methodology description. In conclusion, the
obtained results and the conclusions of the work are presented.

2. Literature review
2.1 SLP
The restructuring of the layout is done in order to optimize the work process,
always ensuring the security of the flow of materials, people and information (Monks,
1987). There are several layout planning algorithms that can be used, with its own
peculiarities, pros and cons. The SLP is a highly used methodology, especially in
small- to mid-size companies, due to its accessibility (Gilbert, 2004).
SLP aims to regulate a series of procedures for selecting the best layout for the
factory facilities and help in the subsequent decision making by the company (Silva
and Moreira, 2009). However, a dense initial research on existing flows, procedures and
activities on the facility is fundamental to better identify the limitations of the study
(Trein and Amaral, 2001).
According to Tortorella and Fogliatto (2008), SLP has three macro steps: (i) analysis,
(ii) research and (iii) selection. The first step is the collection of company data, the
process flow and the activities related to it. To obtain the flow, the distance traveled
by the materials in the layout is generally calculated, and such information is
subsequently aggregated to the “From-to Chart.” As for obtaining the data from the
related activities, it is a description, from those activities that need to be physically
close to each other to those that are irrelevant or even undesirable (Thompson, 2010).
The compilation of this information results in the “Relationship Map.” According to
 BFJ Silva and Moreira (2009), the map relates the areas with each other and the reasons
117,8 for their corresponding proximities. An importance degree scale for these
interrelationships is used. It is also necessary to assess the required space for the
departments and the available area in the facility so that the relationships of proximity
can then be of significant use (Muther and Wheeler, 2000).
The second step comprises the design of different layout alternatives. Therefore,
2100 a “Relationship Diagram” is established, arranging the various sectors according to
their required proximity. Based on this diagram, it is possible to start the construction
of the options of the “Block Diagrams,” which considers the various constraints of the
project (Yang et al., 2000). Finally, the selection of the best layout alternative is
performed, by comparing the several characteristics of the arrangements. Several
criteria can be selected to compare the performance of the layouts. The importance of
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

involving the company’s employees in the choice of criteria should be noted, since they
will be directly affected by the new layouts and will benefit from the project
improvements (Muther and Wheeler, 2000).

2.2 Performance indicators for food service layout

The system of indicators of a company aims to help management and controlling
various aspects related to operational efficiency, such as ergonomics, finance and
production (Baraban and Durocher, 2010). The literature addresses the most
appropriate indicators applied to the context of this paper (Brann and Kulick, 2002).
Based on this survey, key operational performance indicators for the sector of grouped
restaurants were consolidated in four dimensions, as suggested by Pavani and
Scucuglia (2012): people, processes, financial and market. Table I chronologically
shows the frequency of appearance of performance indicators directly or indirectly
related to the food service in the literature.
The consolidated literature review highlights the importance of three main
indicators: productivity, work-in-process (WIP) and traveled distances. The first one
indicates the degree of utilization of the resources (human or material) available for the
production (Kavanaugh, 2014). WIP represents how much inventory is placed
throughout the production process due to inefficiencies of the system (Dora et al., 2014).
The indicator “traveled distances” during the execution of the processes is relevant
because it is directly related to the layout arrangement and will help measure the
performance of the proposed changes in the alternative (Ruiz et al., 2014; Malekshahi,
2013).
Aside from the process indicators aforementioned, several studies (Huan and Qiang,
2011; Ho, 2011; Reich, 2011) assess financial results by means of operating costs
impact, which represent the effect of any change on the organization of the system.
In the dimension “people,” the most frequent indicator mentioned in the examined
literature is “work-related accidents” (Horng et al., 2013; Reynolds and McClusky, 2013).
Regarding market dimension, “customer satisfaction” is the indicator that receives
more attention in the food service’s layout planning literature (Reich, 2011; Baraban
and Durocher, 2010).

3. Method
The method presented in this paper comprises six main steps, as shown in Figure 1.
The first step involves collecting qualitative and quantitative data related to the
current scenario in order to enable the comprehension of the restaurant production
 Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

Process
Absenteeism People Work-in- Productive Financial Market
due to Accidents Employees' Flexibility process Productive area Traveled Operational Re-layout Customer Customers'
Authors injuries at work satisfaction Productivity of layout (WIP) capacity utilization distances costs costs satisfaction complaints

Kavanaugh (2014) X X X X X X X
Dora et al. (2014) X X X X X X X X
Ruiz et al. (2014) X X X X X X
Horng et al. (2013) X X X X X X
Malekshahi (2013) X X X X X X
Reynolds and
McClusky (2013) X X X X X
Wang and Zhang
(2013) X X X X X X X
Heung and Gu
(2012) X X X X X X X
Huan and Qiang
(2011) X X X X X X
Ho (2011) X X X X
Reich (2011) X X X X
Rodgers (2011) X X X X
Baraban and
Durocher (2010) X X X X X X X X X X
Thompson (2010) X X X X X X
Manikas and
Terry (2009) X X X X
Zago et al. (2008) X X X X X X
Ryu and Jang
(2007) X X X X X X
Walker (2007) X X X X X X X
Chen and
Yunhong (2006) X X X X X X X X X X
Hwang and Ko
(2003) X X X X X X
Note: X, the correlated author mentions, quotes, applies or describes that layout performance indicator in his study
Source: Authors
restaurant

Appearance
a southern

service layout
indicators for food
performance
2101
Brazilian

literature of
Table I.

frequency in
Case study in
 BFJ 1. Data collection and production system parameterization
117,8
2. Analysis of flow of materials and relationship intensities

3. Practical limitations assessment

4. Layout alternatives development

2102
5. Performance evaluation of layout alternatives
Figure 1.
Proposed method
6. Multi-criteria assessment and selection of best alternative
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

process and the system parameterization in terms of certain aspects such as production
demand, area, material flow, employees, machines, etc. (Tompkins, 1996). During this
step, the professionals involved in the kitchen routine are interviewed, so they can
suggest and criticize the current layout of their work environment. The collected data is
categorized according to a product, quantity, route, support and time classification
suggested by Yang et al. (2000).
In the second step, the material flow is analyzed and the relationship intensity
among the process units (PUs) is quantified, so the required proximity is respected and
prioritized during the layout development. Moreover, the production area is divided
into two main areas: operation preparation and flow of operation during the service
(Huan and Qiang, 2011). This division is recommended by the fact that there is a
significant difference in the relationship between the amount of moved material and
period of the day in which happens its more intense usage (Malekshahi, 2013).
Step 3 includes the practical limitations of the available facility to the layout
problem, restricting the alternatives to the real scenario and avoiding the so called
“movement of monuments,” which are difficult or costly areas or work stations to be
changed the position (Walker, 2007). In step 4, based on all information gathered so far,
it is defined the PUs, which can be classified according to three main groups in the
restaurant kitchen: health and hygiene, food storage and production processing (Chen
and Yunhong, 2006). Such PUs are rearranged according to the layout requirements in
order to develop several layout alternatives, whose operational performance is
evaluated and ranked according to the pre-defined criteria in step 5. The proposed
criteria is based on the literature review about performance indicators for food service
layout and, therefore, it is selected the most adequate indicators to the specific needs of
the case study. It is highly important to consider which of these indicators reflect the
implemented layout improvements (Heung and Gu, 2012) and which are easily
monitored by management in order to ensure processes’ quality in accordance with
expected standards (Ryu and Jang, 2007).
Finally, step 6 provides a multi-criteria assessment for all layout alternatives
previously generated in order to select the best overall alternative. For that step, the
proposed decision-making tool for the assessment of each of the layout alternative is
the multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT) (Kliemann Neto, 2014). This method allows
the decision maker to structure a complex problem in an objective manner. The fact of
assigning weights to criteria requires the involvement of the senior management in the
selection process, since they will indicate the most important indicators to the business
(Reynolds and McClusky, 2013; Hwang and Ko, 2003).
 4. Results Case study in
The case study was conducted in the kitchen of a small southern Brazilian restaurant a southern
that aims to improve its layout, so that it may effectively support the manufacturing of
the whole production mix offered in the current menu. Therefore, the analysis focussed
Brazilian
the most critical period, the dinner service, since it offers both customized meals and restaurant
a buffet service. The night-shift production team consists of five employees: a chef,
three assistants and a cleaning assistant. All of them were interviewed during the data 2103
collection step.
The current menu comprises three options of salads, three different meals for
children, nine desserts, four different appetizers and 28 hot meals, totaling 47 different
meals. Regarding the demand scenario, a 12-month analysis was performed with data
supplied by the restaurant management. Figure 2 shows the average number of
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

customers served daily on the night. From month four to 12, the daily demand
has reached a different pattern with an average of 106.5 customers and a variation
of 6 percent on the average over the period. However, this monthly average is not
sufficiently representative because there is a high variation in demand during the
weekdays, since the variation coefficient is up to 35 percent within a week.
The service time is directly related to revenues. Because it is a slow food kind, the
cuisine served by the restaurant has a great time of service, which is enough for customers
to interact with the theme and relaxed environment, consuming other products
meanwhile. However, deviations of that time can cause customer dissatisfaction, such as
an undue delay in the delivery of customized meals. The average lead time for the kitchen
staff to process a request is approximately 15 minutes, but at peak periods this time can
reach 35 minutes, which influences not only customer satisfaction, but other indicators of
operational performance. When analyzing the average time of customers in the restaurant,
it is noted that in periods of high demand the retention of these customers is above
average, prolonging the waiting list and decreasing the tables’ turnover, i.e. serving less
people in a particular timeframe.
The initial preparation activities are equally distributed among the four assistants.
However, during the final steps of food preparation, two assistants are dedicated to
serving customized meals, one in organizing and maintaining the buffet service and the
fourth is responsible for assisting the two areas. The cleaning assistant is in charge of
washing dishes that return from the dining room and the ones used by the other
assistants during the operation.

120
Average customers per day

110

100

90

80
Figure 2.
Average of
70
customers served
per day on the night
60
shift from April 2013
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
to March 2014
Month
 BFJ Even with independent tasks the production flow is not linear, which causes
117,8 interruptions among employees’ activities inside the kitchen. Moreover, usually they
walk with utensils on hand, such as knives, forks, pots and hot molds, implying risks to
workers. Accident indicators confirm such risks, since during the last 12 months eight
injuries without absenteeism were recorded in the restaurant, with seven of them
related to production professionals, usually by cuts or burns.
2104 The restaurant production area should be designed so that there are physical
conditions for handling food in a safe manner, avoiding the cross-flow between
unprocessed raw materials, finished products and production residues. In the kitchen
under study there are two access doors, one connecting it to the main dining room and
another to the storage area. The first one is for the output of finished products and
clean dishes for the end customer during the dinner service and the second one is where
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

raw materials enter and segregated process residues leave in bins. The kitchen staff
does not have access to the stock of raw materials, which is performed only by the
employee in charge of it. This employee receives requests for materials, separates the
ordered items and delivers them in baskets to the production area. The required
materials are placed in the defrost refrigerators outside the kitchen, where the
assistants have access.
Once finished the food preparation activities, it is started the assembly and delivery
of products. After assembled, food for the customized meals and the buffet service is
delivered to the waiters for distribution through the same access door, which can
sometimes overload the physical space. The dishes that return dirty from the main
dining room are placed by the waiters in the wash sink through an opening called
serving hatch. From there, the cleaning assistant is responsible for washing and
making them available again for the operation. In addition to the movement of
materials between the kitchen and other sectors, there is an intense movement
of tableware and utensils in the production area. They are used by the assistants
during the execution of their activities. The layout of the kitchen, therefore, must meet
the requirements for adequate food preparation in the early hours of production, as well
as for the period of high demand.
The division of the kitchen areas by activities is crucial for assembling the diagram.
Based on the current layout of the restaurant kitchen, shown in Figure 3, the area was
divided into 13 PUs. The allocated PUs, subsequently detailed, correspond to the
following: asepsis sink, bin 1, bin 2, washing, refrigerator 1 (R1), refrigerator 2 (R2),
refrigerator 3 (R3), freezer 1 (F1), salads, customized meals, buffet service, grill and
stove. Then, the relationship map was established among PUs (see Figure 4) based on
employees’ interviews and process analysis.
Besides the 13 PUs, another preparation area independent from the others has been
identified outside the kitchen and, therefore, disregarded in the relationship map. It is
located between the kitchen and the main dining room because there is not enough
space in the kitchen area to place it. It is called “taco shop” and is constituted by
a gas-heated plate, a refrigerated counter and the cooking space of the chef that
operates it. In this paper, the possibility of adding this sector of 2.90 m² to the internal
area of the kitchen with the improvements of the layout of the site will be studied.
By rethinking the layout, it is necessary to carefully consider each PU area to ensure
that there will be enough space for relocation. The kitchen is 3.66 m long and 6.16 m
wide, with an area of 22.55 m². The area of each PU is presented in Table II.
The constraints regarding the hydraulic system concerns the three sinks already
installed and the sewage system, which are not allowed to be moved because of the
 Bin 2 Case study in
a southern
Brazilian
F1
restaurant
Salad
2105
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

Custom. meals

R2
Grill

Stove

R2
Buffet

R1

Cleaning

Figure 3.
Current
kitchen layout
Bin 1

difficulties in reinstalling them in another wall of the facility. A similar situation

happens with the gas pipes, which follow underground until the next wall to the stove,
where there are the opening valves. Another point that cannot be changed is the
location of the serving hatch between the kitchen and the dining room, because it is an
original opening of the building. Its location, however, is suitable for the initial kitchen
layout, since it gives direct access to the washing PU, so that the path traveled by the
customers’ dirty dishes to the washing section is optimized.
Three main alternatives were developed. The first alternative included the
replacement of R3 and part of the salad area, which is occupied by a simple table and
a refrigerated counter, in order to decrease the walking distance the refrigerator.
 BFJ PUs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

117,8 1 Asepsis sink

2 Bin 1 5
3 Bin 2 0 X
4 R1 0 0 0 Proximity relationship
5 R2 0 0 0 0 9 Absolutely important
6 R3 0 0 0 0 0 5 Especially important
2106 7 Salads 0 1 5 5 9 9 3 Important
8 F1 0 0 0 3 3 3 1 1 Regular proximity
9 Custom. meals 1 1 5 3 9 1 1 1 0 Not important
10 Buffet 1 5 1 5 9 5 5 1 1 X Undesirable
Figure 4. 11 Washing 0 9 0 0 0 0 1 0 5 5
Relationship map 12 Grill 0 X X X X X 0 X 9 5 0
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

13 Stove 0 X X X X X 5 X 9 9 0 9

PU Length Width Area (m2)

Asepsis sink 0.85 0.70 0.60

Bin 1 1.14 0.46 0.52
Bin 2 0.57 0.46 0.26
Refrigerator 1 0.67 1.20 0.80
Refrigerator 2 1.20 1.20 1.44
Refrigerator 3 0.64 1.20 0.77
Washing 2.60 0.72 1.87
Salads 2.22 0.83 3.24
1.02 1.37
Freezer 1 0.55 1.20 0.66
Custom. meals 1.22 0.71 0.87
Table II. Buffet 2.01 1.34 2.69
Areas of PUs Grill 0.57 0.37 0.21

Thus, the proposal is to consolidate R3 to salad. In addition, the location of the bin is
changed to the displaced R3. This new layout also proposes the transformation of the
door between the freezer and the grill in a serving hatch counter, so as to prevent the
waiters from entering the production area. The window next to the buffet would
become a second serving hatch, so that the food can be distributed by the waiters.
Therefore, the distance of the finished products to the buffet service is reduced.
The second alternative considers the advantage of replacing refrigerators for
refrigerated counters. Thus, the freed space can be used to aggregate the taco shop next
to the customized meals area, only relocating the freezer and R3. By distributing the
layout without moving the stove and the grill, a trivial improvement of the layout is
observed, because the location of this equipment is not the best solution to optimize the
flow of people and materials within the kitchen.
The design the third layout alternative has only considered the critical constraints
imposed by the owner of the building, not significantly changing electrical, hydraulic
and gas installations. The first aspect to note is the expansion of the total productive
area, because, besides the kitchen, the PUs have expanded into the space where today is
an aisle for access of the stock to the street. This aisle, as reported by the restaurant
management, is an unproductive area because the access of received goods is done
 through another door, leaving that space to store surplus materials. Food safety Case study in
standards do not allow access of packages brought from outside the restaurant to the a southern
food handling area. However, what is observed in salads is that the material is received
directly from the supplier, cleaned, packed and allocated in the appropriate refrigerator.
Brazilian
Such receiving procedure facilitates cross-contamination of food and, therefore, it was restaurant
decided to split salads into two sectors: first, for reception and preconditioning of
groceries outside the production area; and second, for operation within the kitchen. By 2107
rearranging the operation of the salads and installing refrigerators and freezers, it was
possible to transfer the taco shop into the kitchen. The oven, previously classified in the
stove area, was expanded because new equipment must be installed due to safety
requirements. The flow within the PUs is unidirectional, from the kitchen back into the
dining room, going through cooking, assembly and distribution. The window between
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

the kitchen and the dining room becomes the serving hatch of finished products, and
the door that connects these two environments must be changed into a window to
distribute the products from the taco shop.
Then, the layout alternatives were evaluated according to the most cited
performance indicators for food service layout: productivity, WIP, traveled distances,
operating costs impact, work-related accidents and customer satisfaction. Productivity
was calculated by the number of plates served per hour for the same product, in
comparison with the current layout. For WIP, it was quantified the intermediate stock
in the production area. Traveled distances involved the number of steps walked by the
employees in the preparation of a new meal. The operating costs impact was measured
based on incurred costs for changing the current layout according to the proposal. In
the people criteria, the amount of work-related accidents was chosen as the main
indicator. As a way to measure the performance of the layout from market and
customers’ perspective, order waiting time order was selected as key indicator.
Finally, the MAUT was applied for selecting the best layout alternative. For that,
importance weights were established for each indicator during interviews with
restaurant staff (see Table III). The order waiting time was considered the indicator of
greatest importance, because it directly affects customer satisfaction. Its impact is
easily measured when the customer perceives positive improvements in the
environment. Once the criteria weights were set, each layout alternative was
qualitatively evaluated according to the selected indicators. A 20-point continuous
scale was used, being “zero” a much lower performance than shown by the current
layout, and “20” as the maximum score, such that the expected performance is much
higher than the current one. The layout alternative score was the weighted sum of each
indicator score, shown in Table III. This multi-criteria analysis pointed the third
alternative as the best layout to the restaurant kitchen.

Criteria Indicators Weight Altern. 1 Altern. 2 Altern. 3

People Work-related accidents 15 7 10 10

Process Productivity 20 7 14 15
Traveled distances 15 5 10 15
WIP 15 10 10 15
Financial Operating costs impact 10 15 10 3 Table III.
Market Order waiting time 30 10 10 17 Multi-criteria
Total 105 920 1.130 1.440 assessment – MAUT
 BFJ 5. Conclusions
117,8 The production and information flows of a theme restaurant kitchen were studied in
this work in order to propose improvements in its layout. The application of a SLP
approach was proposed, in order to assess the current scenario and the relationships
among the PUs, developing alternatives that meet the restaurant requirements and
correct critical issues. A wide literature review was carried so the proper layout
2108 indicators were used to measure the performance of each layout alternative. As a
supporting tool for the decision-making process, the multi-criteria method called
MAUT was adapted to facilitate this step.
The results from the implementation of this layout involved a reduction in WIP by
removing refrigerators and the freezer from the production area, leaving only
refrigerated counters. Further, the displacements of the cooking assistants were
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

minimized because the cooled material needed during the operation was repositioned.
Also, the access of the oven, stove or grill was simplified, since just a movement of
rotating the body on its axis is required. This directly contributed to the increase in
staff productivity, besides better production area utilization.
Our findings differ from the outputs observed in previous researches related to the
theme (Kincaid and Corsun, 2003; Lashley, 2000; Ghiselli et al., 1998). First, neither of
the investigated researches presents a multi-criteria decision tool to support the layout
decision-making process of a restaurant. Thus, the integration of such tool to the
method represents a differentiation from previous approaches. Second, the
identification of layout indicators in restaurants has already been evidenced in
literature. However, the adaptation of these indicators to the study context and their
categorization in broader business dimensions characterize a contribution of the
proposed method.
It is worthy to note that there were difficulties in implementing the method
regarding the creation of layout alternatives. The existent practical limitations have
generated an initial difficulty to expand the layout possibilities, due to dealing with
huge structural changes. Moreover, the understanding of the demand variation
was important to plan the production area, because the way activities were distributed
over the six workdays. The study of this variance is a key element on the restaurant’s
layout planning and a recommended opportunity for further research. Further, in order
to validate the proposed method in a broader context, the application of the method
must be extensively tested in different scenarios. Therefore, it would allow verifying its
validity and better comprehend its limitations.

References
Baraban, R. and Durocher, J. (2010), Successful Restaurant Design, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, NJ.
Bougoure, U. and Lee, B. (2009), “Service quality in Hong Kong: wet markets vs supermarkets”,
British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 1, pp. 70-79.
Brann, D. and Kulick, B. (2002), “Simulation of restaurant operations using the restaurant
modeling studio”, IEEE Simulation Conference, pp. 1448-1453.
Chen, J. and Yunhong, H. (2006), “Layout design for service operation of mass customization:
a case of Chinese restaurant”, Service Systems and Service Management 2006 International
Conference, pp. 668-673.
Dora, M., Kumar, M., Van Goubergen, D., Molnar, A. and Gellynck, X. (2013), “Operational
performance and critical success factors of lean manufacturing in European food
processing SMEs”, Trends in Food Science & Technology, Vol. 31 No. 2, pp. 156-164.
 Dora, M., Goubergen, D., Kumar, M., Molnar, A. and Gellynck, X. (2014), “Application of lean Case study in
practices in small- and medium-sized food enterprises”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 1,
pp. 125-141.
a southern
Brazilian
Ghiselli, R., Almanza, B. and Ozaki, S. (1998), “Foodservice design: trends, space allocation,
and factors that influence kitchen size”, Journal of Food Service, Vol. 10 No. 2, restaurant
pp. 89-105.
Gilbert, J. (2004), “Construction office design with systematic layout planning”, 15th Annual 2109
Conference on POM, Cancun, May 15-18.
Heung, V. and Gu, T. (2012), “Influence of restaurant atmospherics on patron satisfaction and
behavioral intentions”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 31 No. 4,
pp. 1167-1177.
Horng, J., Liu, C., Chou, S. and Tsai, C. (2013), “Professional conceptions of creativity in restaurant
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

space planning”, International Journal of Hospitality Management, Vol. 34 No. 2, pp. 73-80.
Ho, Z. (2011), “Restaurant facilities layout: reducing carbon footprint aspect”, Applied Mechanics
and Materials, Vols 58-60 No. 1, pp. 618-623.
Hronec, S. (1994), Sinais Vitais: Usando Medidas De Desempenho Da Qualidade, Tempo E Custo
Para Traçar A Rota Para O Futuro De Sua Empresa, Makron Books, São Paulo.
Huan, W. and Qiang, S. (2011), “Simulation and optimization of service system for restaurant”,
Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IE&EM), 2011 IEEE 18th
International Conference, Changchun, September 3-5.
Hwang, H. and Ko, W. (2003), “A restaurant planning model based on fuzzy-AHP method”,
ISAHP 2005, Honolulu, HI.
Kavanaugh, H. (2014), “Restaurant management: an examination of planning and managing
a restaurant meal”, undergraduate senior honors thesis, Ball State University, Chicago, IL.
Kincaid, C. and Corsun, D. (2003), “Are consultants blowing smoke? An empirical test of the
impact of menu layout on item sales”, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality
Management, Vol. 15 No. 4, pp. 226-231.
Kliemann Neto, F. (2014), “Apostila de Engenharia Econômica”, Universidade Federal do Rio
Grande do Sul, available at: www.producao.ufrgs.br/disciplinas.asp?cod_turma¼503
(accessed July 10, 2014).
Lashley, C. (2000), “Empowerment through involvement: a case study of TGI fridays
restaurants”, Personnel Review, Vol. 29 No. 6, pp. 791-815.
Malekshahi, A. (2013), “Investigation on restaurant layout design”, Eastern Mediterranean
University, available at: http://i-rep.emu.edu.tr:8080/jspui/handle/11129/636 (accessed
July 15, 2014).
Manikas, I. and Terry, L. (2009), “A case study assessment of the operational performance of a
multiple fresh produce distribution centre in the UK”, British Food Journal, Vol. 111 No. 5,
pp. 421-435.
Monks, J. (1987), Administração da Produção, Mgraw-Hill, São Paulo.
Muller, C. (2003), Modelo de Gestão Integrando Planejamento Estratégico, Sistemas de Avaliação
de Desempenho e Gerenciamento de Processos (MEIO – Modelo de Estratégia, Indicadores e
Operação, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.
Muther, R. and Wheeler, J. (2000), Planejamento Sistemático e Simplificado de Layout, IMAM,
São Paulo.
Pavani, O. Jr and Scucuglia, R. (2012), Indicadores de Desempenho: Estruturação Do Sistema
De Indicadores Organizacionais, 3rd ed., Fundação Nacional da Qualidade, São Paulo.
 BFJ Reich, A. (2011), “Relative perceived product quality: increasing the effectiveness of restaurant
planning through a more effective integration of the competitive environment”, Journal of
117,8 Foodservice Business Research, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 2-19.
Reynolds, D. and McClusky, K. (2013), Foodservice Management Fundamentals, John Wiley &
Sons Inc., NJ.
Rodgers, S. (2011), “Food service research: an integrated approach”, International Journal of
2110 Hospitality Management, Vol. 30 No. 2, pp. 477-483.
Ruiz, M., Palomino, P., Canas, R. and Resino, J. (2014), “Consumer satisfaction and loyalty in
private-label food stores”, British Food Journal, Vol. 116 No. 5, pp. 849-871.
Ryu, K. and Jang, S. (2007), “The effect of environmental perceptions on behavioral intentions
through emotions: the case of upscale restaurants”, Journal of Hospitality & Tourism
Research, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 56-72.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

Silva, M. and Moreira, B. (2009), “Aplicação da Metodologia SLP na Reformulação do Layout

de uma micro empresa do Setor Moveleiro”, XXIX Encontro Nacional de Engenharia de
Produção, Salvador, October 7-10.
Slack, N., Chambers, S. and Johnston, R. (2002), Administração da Produção, 2nd ed., Editora
Atlas, São Paulo.
Tompkins, J.A., White, J.A., Bozer, Y.A. and Tanchoco, J.M.A. (1996), Facilities planning, John
Wiley & Sons.
Thompson, G. (2010), “Restaurant profitability management: the evolution of restaurant revenue
management”, Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, Vol. 5 No. 3, pp. 308-322.
Tortorella, G. and Fogliatto, F. (2008), “Planejamento sistemático de layout com apoio de análise
de decisão multicritério”, Produção, Vol. 18 No. 3, pp. 609-624.
Trein, F. and Amaral, F. (2001), “Aplicação de Técnicas Sistemáticas para a Análise e Melhoria de
Layout de Processo na Indústria de Beneficiamento de Couro”, Encontro Nacional de
Engenharia de Produção, Porto Alegre, October 10-14.
Walker, J. (2007), The Restaurant Study Guide: from Concept to Operation, 5th ed., John Wiley &
Sons, NJ.
Wang, X. and Zhang, Z. (2013), “Research on the restaurant space humanized design”, Advanced
Materials Research, Vol. 651, pp. 579-583.
Yang, T., Su, C. and Hsu, Y. (2000), “Systematic layout planning: a study on semiconductor wafer
fabrication facilities”, International Journal of Operations Production Management, Vol. 20
No. 11, pp. 1359-1371.
Zago, C., Abreu, L., Grzebieluckas, C. and Bornia, A. (2008), “Modelo de Avaliação de desempenho
logístico com base no balanced scorecard: proposta para uma pequena empresa”, Revista
da Micro e Pequena Empresa, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp. 19-37.

Further reading
Barbosa, P.C.S. and Leopoldo-MG, P. (2012), “Implantação de Layout”, Trabalho de Conclusão de
Curso, Fundação Pedro Leopoldo, Pedro Leopoldo, MG.
Groover, M. (2010), Fundamentals of Modern Manufacturing: Materials, Processes and Systems,
4th ed., John Wiley & Sons, London.
Guedes, C., Passos, F. and Sampaio, R. (2012), “O Monitoramento de desempenho está alinhado
com a estratégia? Observação em frigoríficos da caprinovinocultura da bahia”, Revista de
Gestão (REGE-USP), Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 415-434.
Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (1996), The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action,
1st ed., Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
 Kaplan, R. and Norton, D. (2008), A Execução Premium, 1st ed., Campus, Rio de Janeiro. Case study in
Krajewsky, L., Ritzman, L. and Malhotra, M. (2009), Operations and Production Management, a southern
8th ed., Prentice Hall, São Paulo. Brazilian
Magneé, H. (2005), Administração Simplificada: para pequenos e médios restaurantes, Livraria
Varela, São Paulo.
restaurant
Pavani, O. Jr and Scucuglia, R. (2011), Mapeamento e Gestão por Processos: BPM, 1st ed.,
Makron Books, São Paulo. 2111
Quintairos, P., Silva, M., Costa, E. and Oliveira, E. (2009), “Aplicação do balanced Scorecard a uma
Organização do Terceiro Setor”, RDE – Revista de Desenvolvimento Econômico, Vol. 11
No. 19, pp. 65-79.
Tompkins, J., White, J., Bozer, Y. and Tanchoco, J. (2010), Facilities Planning, 4th ed., John Wiley &
Sons, New York, NY.
Downloaded by Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan At 18:04 27 February 2016 (PT)

Vargas, M., Rodrigues, C. and Gusberti, T. (2011), Proposta de Indicadores de Desempenho para o
Departamento Comercial de uma Empresa Multinacional: Um Estudo de Caso na Área de
Prestação de Serviços, Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre.

About the authors

Milena Flessas is an Undergraduate Student at the Department of Industrial Engineering at the
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.
Vinicius Rizzardi is an Undergraduate Student at the Department of Industrial Engineering
at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.
Dr Guilherme Luz Tortorella is an Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial
Engineering and Systems at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. He has a PhD and a
Master’s Degree in Industrial Engineering from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul.
He worked 12 years in the industry and had an extensive experience in consulting in operational
excellence. Dr Guilherme Luz Tortorella is the corresponding author and can be contacted at:
gtortorella@bol.com.br
Dr Diego Fettermann is an Associate Professor at the Department of Industrial Engineering
and Systems at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. He has a PhD and a Master’s Degree in
Industrial Engineering from the the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul. His research area
has been product development and operations management excellence.
Dr Giuliano A. Marodin is a Post-Doctoral Researcher at the Fisher College of Business at the
Ohio State University. He received his PhD, his Master’s Degree in Industrial Engineering and
a BBA Degree from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil, where he also worked
as an Assistant Professor for the Industrial Engineering Department (2013-2014) and Business
School Department (2007-2009).

For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website:
www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm
Or contact us for further details: permissions@emeraldinsight.com