Site Loader
Rock Street, San Francisco

Swot Analysis Essay, Research Paper

grind analysis

McDonald s vs. Burger King Organizational Diagnosis by Fastalk Consultants In naming the McDonald & # 8217 ; s organisation, the first issue we will analyze is their company ends. McDonald & # 8217 ; s has a end of one hundred per centum entire client satisfaction. However, they do recognize that this end is non ever come-at-able. Therefore, if for any ground they do non run into that end, they will make whatever it takes to rectify their error. McDonald & # 8217 ; s has a 2nd company end that sets them apart from most of their rivals. McDonald & # 8217 ; s was founded on the rule of giving back to the community, and that remains one of their primary ends today. Through their charities, Ronald McDonald s House and Ronald McDonald s Children & # 8217 ; s Charities, McDonald & # 8217 ; s has pumped 1000000s of dollars back into the community over the old ages. McDonald & # 8217 ; s client service policy is laid out in the McDonald & # 8217 ; s Guarantee. The McDonald & # 8217 ; s Guarantee provinces, & # 8220 ; Your nutrient will be hot. Your service will be fast and friendly. And your drive-thru orders will be double-checked right. If you & # 8217 ; re non satisfied, we & # 8217 ; ll do it right. Or your following repast is on us. Guaranteed. & # 8221 ; The client service processs of McDonald & # 8217 ; s are centered on concentrating on one client at a clip. They are more concerned with the quality of the service than the velocity of the service. Employees normally take merely one order at a clip. They so prepare that order while the clients wait. After the present client is satisfied, they move on to the following client. This process allows great truth and quality, but deficiencies velocity. McDonald & # 8217 ; s clime was non really appealing. Everything appeared to be focused around the concern alternatively of the clients. Employees were working at a rapid gait, but it seemed like they had no clip for clients. They acted as if it was a load for them to halt and reply a simple inquiry or replenish a drink. The ambiance was besides really noisy. There was changeless beeping, banging, and shouting coming from the service country. They did non supply a pleasant atmosphere for clients to dine in. McDonald & # 8217 ; s communicating and leading were besides missing. The lone communicating between employees and clients was the arrangement of orders. The employees provided no feedback in footings of double-checking orders or pass oning any holds that might happen. Communication between employees consisted of loud shouting throughout the kitchen. In footings of leading, we did non see a director nowadays during our full visit. Diagnosing Burger King was a little more hard because they do non supply clients with literature ( booklets ) pass oning ends and policies, as McDonald & # 8217 ; s does. However, Burger King & # 8217 ; s ends seemed rather clear. They want to individualise each client & # 8217 ; s order and supply the fastest service possible. Burger King & # 8217 ; s policy is to give the client many picks and to accurately and rapidly supply whatever the client chooses. This policy is reflected in their motto, & # 8220 ; Your manner, right away. & # 8221 ; Operating under this policy makes it really easy to accomplish their ends. Through the many picks they provide it is easy to custom-make each order. Burger King & # 8217 ; s processs are besides consistent with their ends. In order to individualise each order they provide clients with many options when telling. Some options include french friess or onion rings, cheese, bacon, mustard, catsup, mayonnaise, boodle, tomato, pickles, and onion. The client can pick any combination of these options that they desire. To ease fast service Burger King takes client orders on a continual footing. One employee takes the client & # 8217 ; s order, the client so moves down the line where another employee is fixing the order. Meanwhile, the original employee is taking another client & # 8217 ; s order. Customers besides get their ain drinks while they are waiting for their repast. This makes service much faster in that employees do non hold to fix drinks or supply refills. The clime at Burger King was really pleasant. The employees conveyed the attitude that they were at that place to help the clients in any manner possible. The eating house was really clean and there were no loud noises from the service country. They besides provided loosen uping music for clients to listen to while dining. Burger King possessed more than equal communicating and leading. Employees gave the clients feedback on their orders. Each client received a reception, which enabled them to double-check their order. The employees besides read the order back to the client before passing them the order. In footings of leading, there was a director in field sight throughout our visit. The director showed engagement by taking orders and training employees. Our group compared and contrasted McDonald s and Burger King as follows: Comparison between McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King Analysis: I. Organizational Goals Both McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King portion the same basic organisational ends of profitableness, gross revenues volume, fast and gracious service, and cleanliness. There are minor fluctuations to these ends by both companies. II. Organizational Structure When detecting McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger male monarch, the organisational constructions of the two eating houses were really similar. There appeared to be a crew leader who was a non-managerial employee and, there was a director who was present behind the counter. The directors of the eating houses seemed to be in control of every facet of the full nutrient service procedure. He had keys to the shop, and registries, and besides was the lone one to take phone calls. One might presume that because both eating houses are ironss, there is a hierarchy of bid. There is possibly a regional director, so a territory director, all the manner up to a Chief executive officer of McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King. The differentiation between the direction and the staff was really clear and evident by looking at their uniforms. III. Technology Both McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King are on the cutting border of engineering. They both employ province of the art hard currency registries and both have electric timers built into their cookery machines. Although the cookery manners vary between Burger King and McDonald & # 8217 ; s, the method of production is the same. Large batches of nutrient are cooked at one time so placed under heat lamps or put in the microwave when an order is placed. Both shops have the same thrust through engineering with a talker and a well-lit bill of fare to relay the message to the cooks. Normally whoever takes the order is besides the same individual to roll up the money ; nevertheless, a different individual normally puts the order together for the client. IV. Employee Motivation The motive of both shops for employees to execute good is difficult to determine from merely detecting, but it appears slightly obvious. The people working in these constitutions appear to hold a lower societal economic position, and the fact that a payroll check is coming at the terminal of the hebdomad may be the lone motive they have. The shops do hold an & # 8220 ; employee of the month & # 8221 ; plaque on the wall, but it is dubious that this is motive to strive twenty-four hours in and twenty-four hours out for. There is besides the fright of potentially losing their occupations if they perform sub criterion. V. Communication Both shops employed a really unfastened communicating policy. Employees were speaking, sometimes shouting at one another to be heard. The direction was openly involved in the employees modus operandis and the employees felt no barriers to forestall their communicating with the director. Sometimes in both shops, there would be a break down in communicating someplace along the line and that would ensue in drawn-out waiting times for clients and sometimes, screwed up orders. VI. Environment The environment at McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King seems to be a simple, yet unstable one. It is evident that the bulk of people who work at that place, are non taking their employment as a calling option. Therefore, the work force is invariably altering and accommodating to new employees and new state of affairss. VII. Job Design The design of the occupation in both McDonald & # 8217 ; s and Burger King ran swimmingly at times. There was liberty between the different places. For illustration, the fry individual would merely do french friess. If he ran into a job, he could utilize his cognition of the Fry machine to repair the job without holding to travel to direction. There was a ocular barrier between the different places, nevertheless no place seemed more canonized than another 1. VIII. Leadership Style There was similar leading manner employed by the direction at both shops. Task orientation was indispensable to run intoing the end of fast nutrient. Each individual had to be focused on the

task at hand, because during certain hours of the day, both stores were very busy. There seemed to be little flexibility from management if it meant compromising their goals. IX. Policies/Procedures/Rules/Standards Standardization seemed to be the key at both stores. One can walk into any McDonald’s in the country and find that a “Big Mac” is the same everywhere. Similarly, a “Whopper” will taste the same at every location. Therefore, the ingredients, and cooking methods must remain constant throughout. There can be no variation. Rules and procedures were posted on clear signs and made directly available to the employee. X. Organization Climate There seemed to be individual autonomy for the most part at both stores. However, the reward system was not easy to identify. They seemed expected to do their job consistently and accurately, perhaps in fear of punishment. They received cooperation from management as long as they were working diligently. Contrast between McDonald s and Burger King Analysis: I. Organizational Goals At first glance there are no posters on the wall that state the goals that McDonald s are trying to each. A customer can find a list of the McDonald s goals in what look to be children s flyers round the restaurant. The flyers stated that McDonald s goal is 100% total customer satisfaction. Also if you weren t completely happy with your meal that the restaurant would do whatever it took to make it right. This is not a very realistic goal for a fast food restaurant because with the amount of food that is served everyday there is no way that every customer will be satisfied. When I got to Burger King there were no pamphlets for the customer to read. There was nothing that let the consumer know what the company was all about. There was a large sign, which read the slogan Workin for You. This was what appeared to be the organization goal and it was interesting to see that the slogan was in improper English. Although this goal is much more realistic than the McDonald s counterpart. II. Organizational Structure Although the structure of the two organizations are basically the same there were two differences that I noticed. One difference is in the specific tasks of the employees working the front. In McDonald s there is one person who takes your order and gets your food. Only one person is helped at a time because the cashier has to wait for the food and then serve you. In Burger King there are two separate stations to order and then pick up your food. At the beginning of the line the customer orders and pays in exchange for a number. Then you move down the line to where the customer picks up the food in accordance with the number. This greatly speeds up the lines and reduces the waiting time. The other difference is in the management. At both restaurants there is one manager that handles all the employees working at the time. In McDonald s the manager was no where to be found but in Burger King the manager was at the front letting himself be seen and talking with the customers. He also wore a different colored uniform to signify his position in the organization. III. Technology The production level of the two restaurants is the main difference in their technology. McDonald s makes their food in mass production. The burgers are already made and waiting under a heat lamp for you when you order. They are separated into rows depending on what type of burger you order. In Burger King the burgers aren t already put together. The burger is cooking in the back but the toppings aren t added till the individual orders come. This gives the customer a better chance of getting a fresh meal. IV. Communication There wasn t much communication going on in McDonald s when we were there. The cashiers didn t smile and weren t that polite when taking my order. The communication between the cashiers and the cooks consisted of the cashiers screaming into the kitchen. The manager wasn t around so I wasn t able to see the manager s interactions with the staff. At Burger King I was welcomed by a smile. The cashiers were nice and even held a conversation with me. The manager was out in front conversing with the staff and the employees. The staff appeared to treat the manager as a friend instead of a superior. V. Environment McDonald s environment was neither customer nor employee friendly. Everything in the restaurant is colored brown which just isn t inviting to customers. The staff has pinstriped uniforms that resemble prison uniforms. The restaurant was also badly lighted which didn t help the color. In Burger King there were windows everywhere and the restaurant was extremely bright. The staff wore bright colored uniforms and there was music playing which was enjoyable for the customers as well as the staff. After our group observed the interactions between management, employees, and customers at both operations, we discovered a few areas where Burger King and McDonald s both needed improvement. To begin with, our McDonald s experience was overall enjoyable, yet a few small, but important, details should be considered. Most of the employees uniforms were worn properly and neatly, but the rest were just plain sloppy. Shirts should be tucked in and clean, and hats should be worn the way hats were meant to be worn. This would show that employees value their jobs, and take them seriously. While we were dining, we could not help but notice the loud, high pitched, constant beeping noises coming from the kitchen area. These extremely irritating noises did not stop the entire time. This prevents the guests from enjoying their meals in a soft, relaxing atmosphere. Quiet background music at McDonald s would probably help the ambiance a bit and offset some of the noises coming from the kitchen. We also noticed that even though it was not busy, there was not a manager in sight. In fact, we can not be sure that one was on duty at the time of our visit. At Burger King it was nice to see the manager working along with the employees by taking orders and preparing food. The major problem that we found with Burger King was the lack of menu consistency. The location that we visited did not offer salads, while most other Burger King s do. We feel that if a salad is available at one location, then a customer should expect to be able to enjoy the same salad at any Burger King. It is comforting to a customer to know that the food will be the same (in preparation and availability) at whichever store he or she chooses to visit. We did enjoy how they were willing to accommodate our personalized orders, but it is not appropriate to charge for one slice of tomato or lettuce. McDonald s did advertise quite a bit of community involvement and service. At Burger King we did not see signs of any type of contribution to the community. People may think that the company is greedy and only cares about profit. A charity would show that Burger King cares about the community. In addition, both of these restaurants desperately need to incorporate the fundamentals of great service into their game plans. It would make a tremendous difference if a cashier would very simply smile and say thank you after returning your change. From the expressions on the faces of some of the employees we felt as if we ruined their entire day just by walking through the door! Personality and attitude should be major considerations when hiring employees. Hire only those who will take pride in their jobs, be professional, and treat the guests very well. Our final recommendation for both operations is to adopt a Total Quality Management philosophy. Food should come out with the right ingredients and at the correct temperature. It is a waste of time and money to make an order over again if it is not perfect the first time. With better training and communication there should be no reason for orders to be less than perfect. The proper attention could be directed to the next customer waiting in line. If things are done correctly the first time, it will save aggravation for the guest, who, by the way, will remember that his order came out exactly how he wanted it. Basically, just take care of the customer. Give employees the power to do whatever it takes to make them happy. Exceed their expectations and, in return, you will have a life long patron. He will be back again, and again, increasing long run profitability. This concept should be applied to McDonald s as well as Burger King, to helpattain their corporate goals. References McDonald’s Corporation. (1992). We Guarantee It. Oak Brook, IL: Author. McDonald’s Corporation. (1992). Good Neighbors. Oak Brook, I

Post Author: admin