increasing restroom checks name: beckie telck class: bsap/460 semester: fall 2006 ta name: allison
TRANSCRIPT
Increasing Restroom Checks
Name: Beckie TelckClass: BSAP/460
Semester: Fall 2006TA Name: Allison
Setting and Participant Description
• The project took place at Applebee's Neighborhood Bar and Grill on West Main
• The participants were the hosting staff– About 10 employees
• The manager involved was the General Manger
Reason to Intervene
• Restrooms need to be checked every ½ hour
• Hosts were only completing bathroom checks at about 1% during baseline data
• We wanted to improve this to as close to 100% as possible
Analyze the Natural Contingencies
• The ineffective natural contingency acting for the hosts in this situation was escape.
• By checking the restrooms they lowered the probability of losing their job.
• Since the probability of losing their jobs due to not checking the rest room was too low it did not effectively control behavior.
Analyze the Natural Contingencies
Ineffective Natural Contingency
Have a low probability of
losing job
Checks restroom
Have an infinitesimally
lower probability of
losing job
Analyze the Natural Contingencies
Natural Competing Contingency
Has a given amount of time to greet guests
at door
Checks restroom
Has less amount of time to greet guests
at door
Baseline Graph
Restroom Checks
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3
Weeks
Nu
mb
er
of
sessio
ns w
ith
100%
Co
mp
lete
d
Restr
oo
m C
hecks
Baseline
Baseline Graph Description
• There were 3 weeks of baseline data
• Restroom checks were being completed approximately 1% of the time– This needed great improvement to help achieve
better customer service
Specify the Performance Objectives
The goal of the intervention was to
increase the frequency of restroom checks as
close to 100% as possible to help increase
customer service and cleanliness of the
restaurant.
Input-Process-Output Model
[100% Completed Restroom Checks (output)
Production: Using checklist to monitor hosts (process)
[Less than 100% Completed Restroom Checks] (input)
Goal Specification FormOutput 100% Completed Restroom Checks Standards
Quality
Current Ideal
1% of the time 100% of the time
Quantity Less than ½ of hosts All hosts
Timeliness Every few hours Every ½ hour
Costn/a
No more than $50 dollars on intervention
Process Using checklist to monitor hosts
Production: XDistribution_ __ R&D__ _
Input Less than 100% Completed Restroom Checks
Design the Intervention
• The hosts would be required to initial a checklist for every restroom check
• They would be provided graphic feedback each week
• Managers would provide verbal feedback
• Each time they initialed they would be entered in a weekly drawing
Design the Intervention3 Contingency Performance Management
Have a low probability of losing job
Checks restroom
Has a slightly lower
probability of losing job
Checks restroom
Won’t lose opportunity for
positive feedback
Checks restroom
No fear of losing
opportunity for positive feedback
Will lose opportunity for positive feedback
Fear of losing
opportunity for positive feedback
Ineffective Natural Contingency
Indirect-acting Performance Management Contingency
Theoretical Contingency
Implement the Intervention
• The intervention was implemented on February 23, 2007
• We first introduced the checklist, which the hosts had to initial for each bathroom check
• We introduced graphic feedback the following week• Mangers provided verbal feedback throughout the
intervention
Evaluate the InterventionRestroom Checks
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8
Weeks
Nu
mb
er o
f S
essi
on
s w
ith
10
0% C
om
ple
ted
Res
tro
om
Ch
ecks
Baseline Intervention
Evaluate the Intervention
• The intervention was not 100% successful, but there was improvement!
• They went from 1% all the way to 43% in the first week. A great improvement!
Social Validity• Hosts were given a social validity questionnaire to
evaluate their experience with the interventionChecklist benefited the employees and organization
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
Opinion
Am
ou
nt
of
emlo
yees
Social Validity (cont.)
Restroom checks improved cleaning task completion
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4 5
Opinion
Am
ou
nt
of
em
plo
ye
es
•When asked if the restroom checklist improved cleaning all hosts agreed and rated it 5
IOA
• Interobserver agreement was taken at the beginning and the end of the intervention– Another employee that was not involved with the
intervention assisted– We each took data during one hour – We both agreed that the all behavior occurred in
each restroom check was correct making IOA = 100%
Treatment Integrity
• Treatment Integrity: is the degree to which an intervention is reliably implemented as reported during the BSAP project. – An outline was designed to implement all the components
of the intervention– I was monitored by my systems manager and general
manager of Applebee’s– Social validity was used to determine the satisfaction and
completion of each component
Personal Experience
• I thought this project provided me with great experience.
• I learned hands on how to implement an intervention by using the 6 steps of behavior analysis.
• I was happy with the results of my intervention and thought it made a significant difference.
Manager and Employees’ Experience
• Feedback from the managers and employees was positive
• I was able to help them improve on an behavior that was not occurring often enough
• Even though the hosts may have not like doing the checklist, they appreciated it and knew that it was beneficial
Questions or Comments???