2. 2
Background
Lizard’s Thicket is a family-owned and operated country cooking restaurant specializing in authentic regional
Southern home cooking at reasonable prices. It was first opened by Bob and Anna Williams in Columbia, SC in 1977.
The business has grown to a multi-unit operation with 700 employees including Bob and Anna’s children and
grandchildren. For our project, we worked directly with Robert Willimas III, who is the restaurant operations manager.
Our first task was to meet with him and gather information about how we could best aid Lizard’s Thicket with our project.
From that information, we were able to better customize our objectives and goals (see interview notes and results in
Appendix-A).
Our project consisted of analyzing three Lizard’s Thicket locations. These locations demonstrated various
performance levels based on numbers and perceptions of the management. The lowest performing restaurant was expected
to be the Knox Abbot location, the average performing one was located on Elmwood, and the best performer was located
in the Forrest Drive area (according to the perception of the management). Mr. Williams explained that the first two touch
points were the most crucial to the customer experience. The first touch point is defined as the moment the server
welcomed the customer and took their drink order. The second is defined as the fulfillment of the drink order and the
placement of the food order. With this in mind, we created two separate categories for our data points. We recorded the
time it took from when the customer sits down to the time the drink order is placed, and then a second wait time was
recorded from the moment the drink order was placed to the time they received their drinks.
We visited each location five times, for a total of fifteen visits. Each visit consisted of data collection and the final
three visits to each location also consisted of survey collection. During our first two days of observation at each location,
the management and staff did not know our objective. We did this to ensure unbiased data results avoiding the possibility
of skewed data due to staff awareness of observation. Regarding survey distribution and collection, the manager did not
want us to hand out the surveys to customers so that we did not disturb the dining experience; instead, we placed them by
the register for customers to complete on their way out. At the start of our survey we had a customer-grouping question to
split customers into Student, Family, Couple, or Other categories. The rest of our survey consisted of eight questions plus
a comments section (see Appendix B for examples of the surveys). These questions consisted of five-point Likert scale
questions, ranging from very dissatisfied to very satisfied, and open-ended questions that gave us a chance to collect extra
3. 3
information on items the customers may feel would improve their dining experience. We visited the locations Monday
through Thursday, from 5:30 – 7:30 pm. During this time, the influx of people was surprisingly low. We had expected a
large influx, but instead, we were able to collect data from each individual table due to the gap between arrivals. From
this, we expected the wait times to be lower due to the availability of the servers. The resulting free time allowed servers
to get the first two touches to the tables more quickly.
Analysis of Wait Lines
During our intitial meeting with Lizard’s Thicket management, we were informed that there were no existing
issues with queuing or wait times at any of the three locations. Our site visits confirmed this to be the case. In order to
coroborate the absence of waiting lines at each of the Lizard’s Thicket
retaurant locations, we used the touch point and arrival time data collected
during our observations to build a dynamic model of our process. Using
100 data points from each location, we determined the average touchpoint
times as well as the average total amount of time customers were spending
in our defined system (from initial seating to fulfilment of drink orders).
The calculations derived from our raw data can be seen in the “Location
Metrics” table to the right.
Next, we used these table touch averages to construct a
simulation of our system in ProcessModel. Since each restaurant
possesses approximately the same capacity and resource contraints, the
process maps for each lcoation are identical and can be found under
“ProcessModel Diagram” on the next page. For each location, arrival
times and table touch averages were adjusted to model the Forest
Drive, Knox Abbott, and Elmwood locations. These simulations were
then run for 2 hours to mimic our observation experiences. To the right
are the data outputs showing the quantity processed and average cycle
time for each location. These quantities closely resemble the number
4. 4
of customers we counted during our observation periods at each location (Knox Abbott experienced less dinner traffic and
greater time between customer arrivals). Furthermore, the average cycle times for each location predict nearly the exact
same cycle times calculated using our raw data points (see “Location Metrics”).
Our model outputs also confirmed that there are no
existing waiting time or queuing problems at any of the
three Lizard’s Thicket locations. The activity state outputs
to the left show the metrics for the queues in each
restaurant (this chart is representative of all three Lizard’s
Thicket locations). During our simulations, each
queue remained empty 100% of the time—
meaning that no queues formed at any point
during the process. Collectively, this data
indicates that Forest Drive is the best performing
location with regards to process cycle time,
followed by Elmwood and finally Knox Abbott.
These cycle time metrics align exactly with the
restaurant management’s perception of each
location’s performance. While improvements in
process times at the Elmwood and Knox Abbott
locations may be desirable, at present the
average service times measured at these two
restaurants are not resulting in additional waiting
time caused by customers queuing in the system.
Each customer is able to place and receive their
drink order before the arrival of the next
customer to the same seating area.
ProcessModel Diagram
5. 5
Analysis of Survey Data
Based on our surveys, we found that each location had varying
strengths and weaknesses. Our questions helped us gain insight into Lizard’s
Thicket customer satisfaction. The data shows that 86% of surveyed
customers were returning customers. We also found that Lizard’s Thicket
has a variety of customer groupings, of which students were the least
frequent customer base (Exhibit A). Although overall customer satisfaction
was high in most areas, Exhibit B shows that every location had a problem
with satisfaction of healthy dining options.
Looking at Exhibit C (following page) we are able to see that Elmwood has the highest satisfaction overall with
an average of 4.70, followed by Knox Abbott with 4.35 and Forest Drive with 4.02. The average of all three was a 4.34.
This data is interesting because the operations manager expected for Forest Drive to be the best followed by Elmwood
then Knox Abbott. Our survey data did not match his conclusions.
Family
25%
Other
36%
Couple
28%
Student
11%
Customer Groupings
Exhibit A
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
Overall SaLsfacLon
Wait Time
SaLsfacLon Value of Meal
SaLsfacLon SaLsfacLon with
Number of Healthy
OpLons
SaBsfacBon Levels Across Different LocaBons
Average
SaLsfacLon
Forest Drive
Knox AbboX
Elmwood
Exhibit B
6. 6
Additionally, we surveyed the servers
and found data that did not align with the
operation manager’s conclusion again. We
discovered that Knox Abbott performed best
with an average satisfaction across all types of
4.78, followed by Forest Drive with an average
of 4.67 and ending with Elmwood with an
average of 4.50. These responses were not surprising to our team based on our experience during our visits. We found that
Knox Abbott and Forest Drive had more cooperative managers and that Elmwood was difficult for us to work with. One
Elmwood server mentioned that the servers get complacent. Comments from Knox Abbott servers included the need for
more healthy dining options and one said that certain wait staff needed to have a more positive attitude. Lastly, Forest
Drive servers reflected that the food temperature was often a problem, which could have a significant effect on customer
satisfaction. These additional comments do not give us much insight into which location is best but do help to pinpoint
some issues. By observing the interaction with customers we again found that Knox Abbott was the most personal with
their customers and all surveyed customers from this location had been there before. Comments from Knox Abbott
customers included good value, good food, clean restroom facilities, and friendly waiting staff. These comments support
our data’s conclusions. The only additional comments for Forest Drive just reiterated that customers want more options
for healthy food. Surprisingly, the additional comments for Elmwood discussed how much they love Lizard’s Thicket and
how friendly the staff is. These comments did not reflect the overall thoughts of Elmwood’s customers as seen in our data.
We also had questions that dealt with how the customers heard about Lizards Thicket and if they had considered
dining somewhere else. Our team found that most people had heard of the restaurant through word of mouth or had been
going there for so long that they could not remember. Our data supports this by showing that, overall, many of their
customers were returning. When asked if they had considered dining somewhere else, some said they considered staying
home, one said they had considered Miyo’s and three customers commented that they considered eating at Maurice’s.
This data shows which restaurants Lizard’s Thicket is competing with and could provide knowledge to help them better
guide their marketing strategy.
3.5
4
4.5
5
Average
SaLsfacLon
Forest Drive Knox AbboX Elmwood
Cross Category Customer SaBsfacBon
Exhibit C
7. 7
Overall, the analysis of our data shows that Forest Drive has the best waiting lines, Elmwood has moderate times,
and Knox Abbott is the slowest. Based on that analysis we would expect for the customers to show that Forest Drive is the
best, but our analysis did not support this conclusion. From this knowledge we believe that the amount of time customers
had to wait did not affect their overall satisfaction levels; they were more negatively affected by their food satisfaction and
the lack of healthy dining options.
Recomendations
There are a few recommendations that we can make to management after analyzing all of our data. First and
foremost, the most obvious issue of the factors we surveyed is the need for more “healthy” menu options to choose from.
A significant portion of the customers surveyed were older age groups (50+) and families with young (<18) children,
which matches with the manger goal of creating a “family atmosphere of casual dining.” It makes sense that these groups
are more concerned with eating better as they age and with growing young children, respectively. As mentioned in the
manager survey, Lizard’s Thicket has recently added some grilled and low-carb options to their menu. First, we
recommend that management take some time to see if customer’s simply have yet to realize that these new menu options
exist, and this problem may correct itself without any intervention. However, if the new items are not being ordered,
Management should seek to either add completely new healthy options, such as vegetables that are not fried or cooked
with salt, or even better, improve current menu items. By creating an overall more healthy menu, instead of just adding
some new items, guests will appreciate old favorites that they always order, while simultaneously improving the
healthiness of the dish. Also, it may be beneficial to label them seperately on the menu or provide a small logo or icon
beside it, to indicate that it is a “healthy” eating option.
Another piece of information we gleaned from the surveys was the lack of one major demographic who
frequented the location: college students. USC has a student body of tens of thousands of students, who on average
probably eat out multiple times a week. Two locations, Knox Abbot and Elmwood, are just a couple of miles away from
campus. The prices of Lizard’s Thicket are very comparable to many local dining options around campus, and some
people may argue that the quality of food at Lizard’s Thicket would be much better than the majority of the places where
students eat every day. This is a largely untapped resource that Lizard’s Thicket could greatly benefit from if utilized
correctly. In order to do that, our recommended course of action is to have promotions geared specifically for USC
8. 8
students to incite interest. For example, Uncle Maddio’s Pizza, a relatively new restaurant located near campus, used a
free pizza promotion for the first hundred customres on its opening day. HUNDREDS of students showed up, and even
though the previous two restaurants that were in that location failed, Maddio’s was incredibly successful and is still a
favorite location for college students today. While giving away hundreds of free meals may not be the best option,
something that will generate excitement and discussion among the students could go a long way to bridging the gap to
bring those potential customers in, like a free entre with a drink purchase or a coupon booklet that is handed out at the
student union or somewhere on campus that gets heavy foot traffic.
In terms of the waiting line analysis, it is very difficult to recommend any surface level improvements. During
the time period in which data was collected, customers sat themselves and the restaurant locations were never full, thus
there was never any wait time to negatively affect their experience, so we can not offer any improvements there.
Typically the servers were at the table very quickly, more often than not less than a minute, and only in very few instances
did the customers not have their drinks within a five minute time period (another managerial goal). One issue that might
be considered is that because the customers seat themselves, they may unknowingly all sit in one server’s designated area,
which can cause the appearance of one worker working hard and keeping busy and the others hardly doing anything.
However, having the customers seat themselves allows them to choose their own seats. With no waits, this is probably the
better of the two options rather than attempting to evenly spread out the server assignments. Another point to consider is
that we did not take data for when the customers receive their food (entirely dependent on the type of dish ordered) and
when they received their check, which could have affected their overall experience and thus the rating they gave that
location. The only real recommendation that we can offer is that the servers, even while working a slow shift, need to
avoid being complacent and be even more attentive when the restaurant is less busy. It is easier for a customer to
understand why their food or drink is taking time if the restaurant is busy (and the server has many customers to handle),
but it reflects very poorly on the quality of service when hardly anyone is in the restaurant and the customer still has to
wait several minutes for a drink. Overall, the servers performed within managerial expectations; but it is entirely within
reach to eliminate any negative outliers, especially if there are three serveres on staff for only half a dozen customers,
which was frequently the case during our period of observation.
