Final Rec Project

7/31/2019 Final Rec Project

1/34


2/34

1

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 2

Flowchart Description 4Macro Flowchart 5

Cross Functional Flow Chart 6

Entities and Time Frame Selected 7

Rec. Process 9

Number of Resources 18

Zone and Weight Room Diagrams 19

Survey Data 21

Quality Dimensions 22

Findings 26

Suggestions 30

Future Studies 32


3/34

2

Executive Summary

The Rec. Center issued our group the task of analyzing the current Rec. Center

process and finding areas for potential improvement in regards to customer satisfaction

and efficiency for consideration in the development of the new facility. We determined

that the best way to approach this assignment was to first identify the time period and

day, independent of special cause variation such as summer months or closures, in which

represented the highest level of utilization. This period (which we determined to be

Mondays at 3:00-7:00 P.M.) constitutes the greatest window of opportunity for the Rec.

Center to improve overall customer satisfaction and increase efficiency, as by eliminating

implied utilization through identifying an optimal resource amount by zone, you ensure

that all customer needs are met.

In order to obtain a foundation to assess which areas to focus our attention on, we

first identified the flow of its users through their current process. Substantial analysis of

typical user flows through the process compared to potential flows allowed us to narrow

our focus to the gym, the weight room, the cardio room, and the systems room, which

were by far the most used areas. We collected this data on the most frequent occurring

flows by user through extensive survey distribution and observational data. For the sake

of analysis and congruity with Rec. Center terminology, we will refer to these rooms and

the gym as areas and the sub-sections within these rooms as zones.Following the assessment of which areas encompassed the greatest overall use,

we needed to determine the capacities of each zone in order to calculate (implied)

utilization. To acquire this measure, we used observational analysis to quantify the

amount of people that can use each zone at one time based on the amount of people that

could fit in the zone or the number of machines/equipment available. This measure,

contrasted with peak usage demand by zone (as calculated by our arena model based on

valid and substantiated inputs), gave us an implied utilization for each zone, as no zone

had a demand less than capacity during peak usage.


4/34

3

Each zones implied utilization during peak hours represents an area of

opportunity for the Rec. Center, in that adding the amount of resources which would

reduce (implied) utilization for each zone to 100% during peak hours would mean no

waiting time, satisfied customers, and higher efficiency in turnover and flow (there would

be less people standing around obstructing flow). This being said, our groups ultimate

recommendations are to add 37 cardio machines, space for 8 mats, 29 power systems, 10

strength machines, 14 SR Cardio machines, 8 SR Machines, and space for 16 more

people to simultaneously lift free weights. The implementation of these suggestions

would not equate utilization to exactly 100%, as there are certain rounding errors

generated by Arena (plethora of simulations). These numbers, however, are

representative of the changes that need to be implemented in order to get utilization as

close as it can be to 100%.Although the output from Arena suggests that there was a wait, in reality, this

doesnt typically happen. Arena operates under the assumption that users begin to line up

and wait for a used resource to free up. We observed that usually users would just go find

a different type of resource that is not being used and utilize it in place of waiting in line

for a machine. However the output is still accurate in the sense that if every single

resource was being utilized it shows how the lines would form and the waits that would

follow.


5/34

4

Description of Macro-Level Flowchart

The macro level flowchart we created illustrates the overall process, from a broad

viewpoint, we hope to analyze as well as the relevant flows within the process. It

illustrates which sections of the process we intend to hyper analyze (Gym, Cardio,

Strength) as well as the other sections (titled other and locker room) relevant to the

overall process, which we will analyze broadly (in terms of utilization) in order to discern

overall utilization and better assess the areas of interest. Without trying to show the

physical layout of the facility, it suggests the progression of a typical user through the

process. It should be noted that the four options (gym, cardio, strength, and other) are not

chronological, as indicated by the absence of arrows on the lines connecting them.

Description of Functional Level Flowchart

The functional level flowchart we created helps to break down the macro level

flowchart into a narrower scope via the use of swim lanes (entering, use, and exiting).

It also depicts the sections more intricately by breaking the sections down into

subsections. This process is viewed as the flow of the consumers use of the Rec. Center.

This flow chart helps to visualize the three main sections we plan on analyzing and

delivering to the Rec. Center. It should be noted that we are constructing this deliverable

not only for this class, but it has also been requested by the Rec. Center Board to helpwith the design of the new Rec. Center.


6/34

5


7/34

6


8/34

7

Entities and Time-frame Selected

It was apparent to us, and suggested by the Rec. Center, that we determine which

period represented the highest typical use of the Rec. Center, in regards to what day and

time period has the heaviest traffic. A period characteristic of the highest usability

represents the best landscape for analysis, and also has the greatest implications for our

suggestions to the Rec. Center. On this note, we directed our attention away from

Saturdays and Sundays, as these two days represent levels of usability that are

significantly lower than rates typical of weekdays. That being said, we chose a random

week within the school year on one stipulation; that the week was absent of any closures

(to reduce the propensity for outliers and make analyses based on relevant, important

data).

We determined such week to be 10-3-2011 to 10-9-2011, with analyses and

justifications to follow. Within this week, Monday exemplified the highest overall

usability, 3610 total daily users (See Graph Below).

36103270

30132802

1555

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

30003500

4000

Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday

Total Daily Users (10/3-10/9)


9/34


10/34

93


11/34


12/34


13/34

12


14/34

13


15/34

14


16/34

15


17/34

16


18/34

17


19/34

18

Number of Resources

Based on the headcount data given by the Rec. Center, we were able to narrow

down the ten broad areas to the top three most heavily utilized zones. We did this to help

simplify our process as well as to focus on data that we felt the Rec. Center would most

appreciate and be able to implement solutions to improve the overall experience for its

users.

The three areas we chose to focus on were the weight room, the systems room,

and the cardio areas. Once we had our areas fixed we attempted to rezone them, as shown

by the Visio maps in the following section. We rezoned these areas based on equipment

and exercise type to help visualize where waiting time most frequently occurs. The

number of resources that each zone contains varies. The results are displayed below:

Area Capacity of Resources

Weight Room

Free Weights 30

Machines 24

Bench/Squat/Power 25

Systems Room

Mats 8

Machines 49

Cardio 8

Cardio

Cardio Room 48

Cardio Theater 17

Gym

Expansion 30

General 30


20/34

19


21/34

20


22/34

21

Survey Use Data

The following data was gathered through a survey to determine the amount of

time an individual spends on certain resources we chose to examine:


23/34

22

Five Quality Dimensions that Improve Rec. Center Processes

The five quality dimensions typically examined to ensure customer satisfaction

and describe a process from a qualitative perspective are Responsiveness, Assurance,

Empathy, Reliability, and Tangible. After breaking down and analyzing survey results, it

is apparent to our team that most of the users of the Rec. Center rank the importance of

these quality dimensions in the following order 1.) Assurance 2.) Responsiveness 3.)

Tangibility 4.) Empathy and 5.) Reliability.

This particular component of the survey provided us with an overall idea of what

our process consumers care about, but fails to shed light on what the process is currently

doing well and areas for potential improvement within the quality aspect of the Rec.

Center. Taking this into consideration, we formulated our next question to generate datawhich hints at which areas the Rec. Center should focus on to better meet their

customers expectations concerning quality. This question resulted in the following

results, listed in order of the greatest potential area for improvement (most consumer

qualms with status quo) to the least (currently satisfied). 1. Tangibility 2. Responsiveness

3. Reliability 4. Empathy 5. Assurance


24/34


25/34

24

After describing the quality dimensions to our survey sample, we asked the

following questions:

Question 1: Please rank these five quality dimensions in importance to you as a Rec.

Center user, 1 being the most important and 5 being the least important.

Results from survey Question 1: Out of 75 Rec. users surveyed, 30 ranked Tangibility

as the dimension of greatest importance to them, 20 ranked responsiveness as the area of

greatest importance to them, 11 reliability, 7 empathy, and 7 assurance.

Question 2: Please list the dimensions you feel arent being satisfied by the rec. center

currently, including those that are being met to the lowest degree of satisfaction first.

Result from survey Question 2: Out of 75 Surveyed, 40 ranked Tangibility as an area of

greatest potential improvement, 12 ranked responsiveness as the area with the greatest

potential for improvement, 10 reliability, 7 empathy, and 6 assurance.Some responses regarding these rankings are listed below under their respected

quality dimension heading, and we have found that these comments are valuable to the

formation of our ultimate suggestions to the rec. center regarding maintaining a high level

of quality and satisfying customer wants and expectations. We have only included

comments, which we found were common among many users who responded, as their re-

occurrence.

Tangibility

Most gyms have a nice entry way which make you feel comfortable before your

workout; our Rec. Center doesnt. Maybe put in a little fountain or some T.V.s when you

walk in.

The music at the Rec. Center is horrible; no one wants to listen to classical music while

they are lifting or otherwise, and having iPods is just one more way to get something

stolen, not be able to hear your spotter/other people, and build up sweat in my ears from

the headphones. At least put on Dave Matthews or something.

The locker rooms are outdated and pretty gross. It would be better for first impressions,

especially for alumni and guests, if these could be cleaned up and maybe re-organized.


26/34

25

Responsiveness

It takes forever to get a towel, basketball, racquetball racquets, etc. because the

rec in general doesnt have enough of these things, and cant communicate time limits

when they rent them out.

I feel like it takes so much longer to get a good work out in at the Rec. compared to my

gym back home.


27/34

26

Findings

The above data shows the amount of time on average that a surveyed group of 65

individuals spent in the different zones. Since our arena model didnt take into account

people that do not go to the different zones we through out all 0s from the data set. This

information above was used to run the model along with a maximum of 60 minutes and a

minimum of 10 minutes. However due to the data in the cardio rooms being much higher

the maximum was 90 minutes and the minimum was 15 minutes.

Performance measures: L (Inv system ) expected number of customers in the system

Min Avg: 51 AVG: 76 Max Average 104

Lq (Inv q ) expected number of customers in the queue Min Avg: 11 AVG: 29 Max Average 57

W q (T q ) expected time in the queue Min Avg: 7 AVG: 17 Max Average 31

Cardio RoomsFree Weights Machine Bench/Squat/Power Cardio (SR) Machine (SR) Mat Area (SR) Cardio

Mean 31.38 20.73 32.15 20.37 38.25 19.56 49.50

Time Spent On (min)Strength Room Systems Room

11

29

57

717

31

51

76

104

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Minumum Average Average Max Average

AVG Current Queue

Q (Average Queue Size)

A (Average Time Waiting)

Demand


28/34

27

Performance measures: L (Inv system ) expected number of customers in the system

Min Avg: 51 AVG: 76 Max Average 104

Lq (Inv q ) expected number of customers in the queue Min Avg: 0 AVG: 0 Max Average 28

W q (T q ) expected time in the queue Min Avg: 0

AVG: 0 Max Average 14

0 0

28

0 0

14

51

76

104

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


AVG Queue With Suggestions

Q (Average Queue Size)

A (Average Time Waiting)

Demand


29/34

28

The data above shows the Rec. Center and what sections experience the highest

use. The top 5 most utilized recourses are power area, free weights, expansion, cardio,

and the machines in the system room. While the number of entities in the rec center is

calculating at the peak time the team felt that it was crucial to calculate this in order to

figure out how to solve the 5 quality dimensions. Due to the amount of entities that are

flowing through the Rec. Center at a peak time there are many bottlenecks that constrain

64%

100%

147%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%


AVG Utilization With Suggestions

Utilization

112%

177%

259%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%


AVG Current Utilization

Utilization


30/34

29

and delay people from flowing through the process. From the data that we collected and

from what we deemed as an acceptable queue their were only four sections that had

enough resources in order to handle this many entities during a one hour period these

were the two check-ins, and both locker rooms.

The findings we gleaned concerning resources also helped to explain why the

queues were built up, and to quantify this build up. We found the largest queue during

analysis conducted at peak usage hours to develop at the expansion gym. There is an

average of 62.6 people in this queue, and we attribute this to their intent to play pick up

basketball. This finding is logical in that this area bolsters a minimal (3 courts) amount of

resources.

The second largest queue tends to develop in the power section, where 53.35

people are waiting, on average, to use the associated resources. We feel that this, also, isattributable to the small amount of available resources (most notably squat racks and

Olympic lifting stations) as well as the duration in which the machines are used (tends to

be longer as multiple sets can be performed).

At an average queue of 36.89 people during peak usage times, the Cardio Theater

constitutes the third largest queue. Survey results and qualitative analysis suggest that this

is because the Cardio Theater has larger T.Vs, better ventilation, and more open space.

This reason for queue development differs from the former two in that it isnt necessarily

because of a lack of resources, but more so because of the tangible factors described

above and the desire for a certain type of workout experience. The length of use does

affect this queue size slightly, however, in that we often observed people restarting the

machines after the 30-minute intervals that the machine operates (automatically shuts

down after 30 minutes).

Though we narrowed our focus to low-level analysis of certain zones, our

observational, survey, and provided (by the rec center) data indicates that the top three

highest utilized areas are Cardio theater (at 279%), Expansion gym (at 239%), and Mats

(204%).


31/34


32/34

31

rec center. The first of these areas of opportunity revolves around Maisters 1 st principle:

unoccupied time feels longer than occupied time. By adding televisions to zones that

dont presently have them, adding magazine racks and newspaper racks to each zone, and

putting a bucket of stress balls in each zone, the rec center can easily keep their waiting

users occupy and detract from perceived waiting time. The 2 nd principle, which should be

referenced by the rec. center to reduce perceived wait in the minds of users is:

uncomfortable waits seem longer than comfortable waits. It would be easy, especially

given the space expansion we propose for meeting demand (though this wouldnt be

relevant until the development of the new facility) to add chairs or benches to each zone.

Sitting is far more comfortable than standing in a confined space. By addressing these

principles in the above ways, the rec center can close the gap between perceived and

actual wait time and add significant value to their customers.


33/34

32

Future Studies

After completion of this project, we have noticed three other possible studies that

could be analyzed to increase customer satisfaction and efficiency within the Rec. Center.

The three studies are as follows:

1. One thing the Rec. Center could focus on is the utilization of the individual

resources within the zone. For example within the power zone the Rec. Center

could see if the Bench, Squat racks, or cleans section gets used the most therefore

they could increase a particular resource and not just the zone.

2. Analyze the flow and usage of the section labeled other. The entities that fall into

these sections include: Track, Hallway, Conference Rooms, Tennis Courts,

Squash Courts, Climbing Wall, Patio, Tunnel, Rowing Studio, Ice Rink, Cycle

Studio, and Mat Room.

3. As mentioned previously, the Rec. Center could also take a look into the use of

smart locks in its locker rooms. Smart locks could be a necessary improvement if

most customers are using the current ones and there is demand for more.


34/34

Final Rec Project

Documents

Transcript of Final Rec Project