Report on Factors That Affect the Standards of Food Courts

National Environment Agency

Submitted to: Mr. Lim Ah Beng

• Submitted by: Ameenah Abbas Dershvin Singh Muhammad Ramlan Muhammad Salmaan Nguyen Le Van

Submitted on: 28th January, 2011

Executive summary [Purpose] This report investigates the dramatic fall in the number of customers patronizing stalls in a particular food court. [Scope] Factors affecting the standards of the food court include quality of food and services provided. [Methods of investigation] A checklist was created to highlight the problems found and also surveys were given out to 20 random patrons. [Findings] From personal observations, it has been highlighted that the overall standards of food court was unsatisfactory. [Findings] There were insufficient number of workers to help out at the stalls and with cleaning. [Findings] During peak hours, the situation at both the food court got even worse. [Conclusion] Both food courts were at an unsatisfactory level which made the complaints reliable and accurate. [Recommendations] It is therefore suggested that NEA should consider implementing rules to improve the standards of the food court.

0 12.0 INTRODUCTION 1.0 RECOMMENDATIONS 4.0 14.3 Quality of Food 2.0 10.2 Quality of Service 15 15 3 6 8 10 12 14 15 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 .4 Limitations of Report 1.0 19.2 Statement of Purpose 1.3 Scope of Report 1.5 Sources of Data Collection 2.1 Statement of Problem 1.4 Grooming and Hygiene of workers 2.0 3.0 18.1 Cleanliness of Food Court 2.1 Cleanliness of Food Court 4.0 17.1.0 8.0 CONCLUSION 4.0 7.5 Customers Feedback 3.0 6.0 5.0 4.0 2.0 Content Page Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1.0 15.0 11.0 13.2 Quality of Service 2.0 16.0 FINDINGS & ANALYSIS 2.0 9.

0 25.4 Grooming and Hygiene of workers 5.0 22.0 27.0 4.0 34.0 24.0 31.20.0 33.In or Take Away 15 15 3 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 .0 APPENDICES *List of Figures Figure 1: Cleanliness of Neutron Food Court Figure 2: Cleanliness of Proton Food Centre Figure 3: Quality of Service of Neutron Food Court Figure 4: Quality of Service of Proton Food Centre Figure 5: Quality of Food through Presentation and Ingredients Figure 6: Grooming and Hygiene of Workers at Neutron Food Court Figure 7: Grooming and Hygiene of Workers at Proton Food Centre Figure 8: Frequency Visiting of the Customers Figure 9: Numbers to Eat.0 23.0 32.0 REFERENCE PAGE 6.0 26.0 21.0 30.0 28.3 Quality of Food 4.0 29.

There were several issues like unhygienic practices of food handlers and visibly unclean premises that caused the rise in complaints. We have seen a dramatic fall of about 50% of the number of patrons for the past two years.2 Statement of purpose Our manager. 1. has sent a team to inspect the food court to see if the complaints were true and report back to NEA.Introduction 1. However. Comparisons with other food courts around the area were also made and changes that occurred in the past years were highlighted.3 Scope of report The scope of report will highlight some important factors: • Cleanliness of food court . Mr.1 Statement of Problem Many complaints have been brought to our attention every year from various food courts but two particular food courts (Neutron & Proton Food Centre) has seen a sharp rise in complaints regarding the quality of food and service provided. they were reported with compliments and commented to have better service compared to other food courts in the near area. 1. the complaints kept coming and that lead the team to do an investigation. since 2008. The two food court NASA and BASA were highly rated during the previous years (in 2005 and 2006). Lim Ah Beng. The investigation may range from visual identification to in-depth analysis of the food.

There were also some data collected through the use of the internet .• • • Quality of Food Quality of Service Customers Feedback 1. observation and taken down in a Checklist. There were stores that were still closed when the 2nd and 3rd visits were made. That made the responses somehow not reliable. Respondents were also in a hurry and were not willing to answer the questions given.4 Limitations of report Surveys were given to only 20 random persons per food court that should make it a selection bias. Questionnaires were also given out to random patrons of the food court. 1.5 Sources of Data Collection Data was collected through. There were only five people in the group which limited the teams’ ability to try all the stalls that were available.

1 Cleanliness of Food Court .1.0Findings and Analysis The results of the checklist and customer surveys were compiled and analysed as followed: 2.

The team had gone around to highlight the cleanliness of the food court. .Fig 1 Neutron Food Court . The floors were not the cleanest as expected from a food court but it was of a satisfactory standard.The figure above shows the ratings of Neutron Food Court during both non-peak and peak hours on a weekday. The first check of Neutron Food Court was made during a non-peak hour.

it was highlighted that most cutleries were not really clean for consumption. This situation was monitored for a good 20-40 minutes. cubicles had rubbish everywhere and door handles did not seem to be of hygiene standards too with unidentifiable liquids all over them. Furthermore. However when the team was about to leave the food court. None of the cleaners took the initiative to clear up the piled up wastes. However. (inset picture) Cutleries were clean and had no food stains. From the look of the cutleries. with the drainage of the restroom blocked by the damp tissues. The food court was seen to be highly populated at this time as expected. The trip to the restrooms raised considerable attention to the whole team. The purpose of this visit was to compare the differences in cleanliness during non-peak and peak hours. There were much more damp tissues on the floor and this time the floor was found to be wet. Leftover food was seen on the floor and drinks spilled were not cleaned up too. The floors were definitely not of acceptable standards.During the trip to the restrooms. The same round of checks were made this time around as it was done during the non-peak hours. The wastes on the tables were not cleared up at all and it was piled up. the wastes were not cleaned up on time even though the food court had a lack of customers during this hour. Another alarming issue was with regards to the wastes. the cleaners finally decided to clear up the wastes at last. small parts of the floor were found to be covered with damp tissues and rubbish. . but this was unfortunately carried out right in front of patrons consuming their meals. The next visit was during the peak hours.

Fig 2 Proton Food Centre . when the food court was not crowded with patrons. The same check was carried out just like the previous food court. during non-peak hours. tables were still left uncleared for a good 10-15 .The next food court in question was Proton Food Centre located at the north. Even during this hour. The first check to this food court was made on a weekday.

However. Lastly. the cleanliness of the food court was not able to be well-maintained. and when the cutleries finally came. There were only 2-3 cleaners that were going around helping clear the tables during peak hours. They had to therefore wait for the new set of washed cutleries to come. 2. This is one of the factors that had led to the increase in number of complaints. which took a good 10 minutes. food wastages were seen piled up at the wastage area and crows were seen all around just as they were seen during the non-peak hours too. an analysis was made on the two food courts and due to the insufficient number of workers. Cubicles were clean and the floors were clean too except for one or two used tissues by the side. the sinks were choked with dam tissues and sweet wrappers.2 Quality of Service . the second check to the food centre was made during peak hours. This restroom was in no contention to pass toilet standards of a food court. crows were seen crowding the wastage area because it was filled with wastes and cleaners were not clearing the area at all. the food court was very busy. Tables and chairs were not cleaned even after several minutes of waiting. which was of acceptable standards. During the consumption of meals. There were not enough cutleries for patrons to consume their meals. they were oily and looked totally unhygienic to be use for consumption. From the findings. As expected. Next up was a check of the restroom. With this in mind.minutes. The check of the restrooms gave an even bigger shock as toilet bowls and sinks were completely dirty and choked. Tables were left with leftovers by the patrons and not cleared.

When asked the stallholders for the existing orders. . The unpleasant moments came during the peak hours at Neutron Food Centre. These were the findings of Neutron Food Court during both non-peak and peak hours. The stallholders were indeed friendly in taking orders and cleaners were quick to spot un cleaned tables and cleared them for the customers.Fig 3 Neutron Food Court – The figures above shows the ratings that were given to Neutron Food Court.g. meals were served on time. special orders (e. When an order was made. During the non-peak hours. adding more vegetable and etc) were ignored. Some of the customer’s orders were forgotten. they replied in an unfriendly manner. Moreover. the cleaners did not attend to cleaning the tables.

Patrons had to resort to cleaning the tables up themselves to allow their meals to take place. orders were not missed but the condition of the work area was in a mess. Proper hygiene procedures were left out. The findings for both food courts were somewhat similar. The wastage area was still left un cleaned and that was disturbing because of the crows rounding it. Cleaners did not clean tables as fast as they were expected to. When it got to peak hours over at Proton Food centre.Fig 4 Proton Food Centre. stallholders were still friendly in taking orders.Quality of service over at Proton Food Centre during non peak hours was not exactly of acceptable standards. The major problem in both food courts were the lack of . The situation during peak hours was really busy which may have made the workers less friendly in Neutron food centre. Vendors were friendly in taking our orders and cleaners were spot on at clearing tables filled with used plates and cups.

workers during peak hours which resulted into many tables not cleared for patrons to have their meal.3 Fig 5 Quality of Food . 2.

and servings were little of noticeable amount. a few ingredients were missing too. like salt and vegetables when it was requested to be included.g. Presentations of meals were not pleasing to the eyes too and some did not even look like what was displayed in the picture. In some meals. the food quality had drastic changes. This made them really busy during the peak hours which resulted to poor presentation and lack of ingredients. Servings were okay during non-peak hours at both food courts. Messy presentation and ingredients all over the plates were seen throughout most stalls. . Lesser ingredients were also given during peak hours (e. chicken.Neutron Food Court & Proton Food Centre The quality of food over at both food courts were not up to standards. Some stalls had only one worker who was taking orders and cooking at the same time. During peak hours however. The findings for both food courts were disappointing. Food taste was nowhere near the standards it should have been. prawns and etc).

2.4 Grooming and Hygiene of workers Fig.6 Neutron Food Court .

As we can see from the graph . Workers were seen without gloves . the grooming and hygiene of workers at Neutron food court is of acceptable standards as the ratings are “good” or “average”. Proton Food Centre The graph for Proton food centre reads as the hygiene and grooming being average during nonpeak hours and “poor” and “very poor” during peak hours. Workers were well groomed and hygiene practices were seen clearly as they wore gloves and aprons prior to cooking the meals.

2. Some of the stall vendors were also seen making contacts with their body prior to cooking these meals without gloves.during the cooking of meals.5 Customers Feedback .

of Patrons The above figure shows how often those who have been surveyed visit the particular food court. more patrons visit the food court on a weekly or monthly basis. As you can see.Fig 6 No. The reason to this maybe the food court overall quality and cleanliness does not appeal to the patron and would prefer to eat somewhere else. .

The views of the customers were similar to the teams’ views which confirmed that the findings were accurate and improvements needed to be made. . of Patrons The figure above gives an idea of how many patrons actually have their food in the respective food courts. They are aware that standards have dropped drastically and it needs major improvements. The customers’ feedbacks have shown that most patrons are upset with the food court in terms of cleanliness and the quality of food and service. The numbers show that most of them usually take away their food and this maybe because of the standard of the food court in terms of service.Fig 7 No. food and hygiene.

The ingredients as well as the presentation were fairly good during non-peak hours but during peak hours. the results were below average. toilets.35. Service • In Proton food court. Grooming and Hygiene of workers . cutleries. we also found the cleaners were doing a better job during peak hours and non peak hours from Proton Food court when compared with Neutron food court. • Additionally. we found that the service provided by the vendors were better than the service provided in Neutron.0 Conclusion Based on the findings and the analysis. and was rather more maintained. table and chairs that were in Proton were much cleaner than that of Neutron. the following conclusions were drawn: Cleanliness • We found that Proton was more hygienic than Neutron. • Floors. Quality of food • • The presentations of food in both the food centers were unsatisfactory.

• It is also concluded that patrons who happened to visit both the eateries preferred to order take-away rather than consume the food in the food courts Analysis on services: • Workers: The food courts hired new workers. so that the best way is to give them proper training as well as motivate them in doing their job well. the following were recommended: . so that it has to be adjusted. • • Hygiene: hygiene check must be done frequently and randomly Food: check on food sources that the food courts imported from to see if those sources have good quality and hygiene.• Hygiene and grooming for Neutron food centre was slightly above average but for Proton the research just produced a middling result. the standards of hygiene and grooming for both food centers were lesser that that during the non. and that they happened to patronize there more on a monthly basis. Customer’s feedback • It was found that little people ate at both the food courts every day. • During the peak period. 2.peak period. • Prices: the price is found to be unreasonable high.0 Recommendations Based on the conclusions above.

Impose fines on workers who do not practice good hygiene practices.2.1 Cleanliness of food court • A daily routine of cleaning the restroom. • Sending workers for training to improve on their work ethics (a) English Language courses to better communicate with patrons 2.2 Quality of Service • Employ a worker to be in charge of rest room entry fees so that he will ensure the cleanliness of the rest rooms. Checklist has to be provided for monthly submission to NEA. • Provide more skilled workers and cleaners to help with the cleaning during peak hours. .3 Quality of Food • Paste a checklist in food stalls for hawkers to see if they have missed any ingredients when cooking the meal. • Provide more helpers to help with taking down the orders or cooking.4 Grooming and Hygiene of Workers • • Strict ruling of gloves to be worn at all times during cooking. 2. They can glance at the checklist after cooking the meal and before serving. 2.

• Paste pictures of workers showing the standard way of wearing gloves so that vendors will follow them. .