By Tracy Kamikawa and James Zigouris

1. The Cafeteria Menu By Tracy Kamikawa and James Zigouris

2. Introduction Our project was to determine all factors that are involved in deciding what food should be served at the Mason-Abbot Cafeteria. The cafeteria approximately serves 150 students per meal and offers breakfast, lunch, and dinner courses. The breakfast menu consists of a side of meat, side dishes, starches, cereals, bagels, eggs, and drinks. The lunch menu consists of vegetable side dishes, soup, entrée, vegetarian entrée, sides, deserts, drinks, and salads. The dinner menu consists of a different selection in each of the lunch categories. The cafeteria is home to a large workforce, containing 17 full time employees, consisting of seven cooks, two sanitation workers, six supervisors, one assistant manager, and one food manager. Also, the cafeteria employs 160 students on a part time basis.

3. Objectives Our objective in studying this cafeteria was to draft a menu which maximized variety while minimizing cost by utilizing a linear programming formulation. We also considered the nutritional needs of the average student with regard to caloric, protein, and fat intake. Our objective function was to minimize the cost of operation for one week. This required minimizing spending on food, manpower, and utilities and maximizing income from the purchase of meal plans.

4. Methodology Our methodology consisted of assessing the current fare offered at the Mason-Abbot cafeteria in terms of variety, cost, preparation time, required manpower, and nutritional value. Our formulation was in terms of 50 servings, as we assumed that the 150 students served at each meal did not partake in every offering. In other words, only 50 out of the 150 students ate each item on the menu. Preparation times required for dishes and bulk prices for the food items were obtained to further aide in our formulation.

5. Results We determined an optimum menu and found the price to be $18,466.71. Our plan was to minimize the cost while still presenting variety. We discovered that it isn’t feasible to provide vast variety within the bounds of monetary and production costs. Even with the income of purchased meal plans, the cost of operating the cafeteria is very high. In the end, even though all other variables are considered, cost is still the determining factor that MSU considers when developing the menu.

6. Discussion As our study progressed, we began to appreciate the magnitude of the challenge. At times it seemed that the factors involving cost and nutritional values were at odds. Bulk foods, while more affordable, were often higher in fats and carbohydrates. This and other conflicts truly made this project a difficult task. When considering the variety on the cafeteria menu, it might not seem sufficient, or the tastes might be sub-par, but you must remember all the factors that were considered when the menu was being drafted. Just as universities are known for their poor dormitory food, college students are known for their empty wallets. A better tasting cafeteria menu might not seem like such a great idea when a meal starts to cost more than a meal at a classy restaurant.

7. Conclusion We found a menu minimizing cost and maximizing variety over a one week period at the Mason-Abbot cafeteria. We utilized a linear programming model to incorporate nutritional values, income, and the costs of food, labor, and utilities in determining the best possible menu. Our methodology consisted of comparing food options by constraining the variables to minimize cost and labor, maximize variety, and meeting protein requirements while not exceeding fat intake guidelines. As we stated previously though, the perfect menu cannot be attained and the menu that costs the least is the one that is served.