PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT TEAM

Yimin Lai Kim-Yen Nguyen

Brian Loyal Timothy Rogers
Kazuhiro Nakagawa Courtney Todd

FALL 2005
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. MISSION STATEMENT.......................................................................................................................................4
2. CUSTOMER NEEDS ANALSYIS........................................................................................................................4
3. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................................................5
3.1 THE BUSSMASTER FRAME ........................................................................................................................5
3.2 THE SLIDING BIN SYSTEM .........................................................................................................................7
3.3 THE INSERTABLE DISH RACKS ..................................................................................................................8
4. MARKETING.........................................................................................................................................................9
4.1 MARKET OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................................9
4. 2 MARKET SEGMENTATION .........................................................................................................................9
4.3 MARKETING PLAN ...................................................................................................................................11
5. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS ..............................................................................................................................12
6. MANUFACTURING............................................................................................................................................14
6.1 BILL OF MATERIALS ...............................................................................................................................14
6.2 OVERSEAS MANUFACTURING ..................................................................................................................15
6.3 FINAL ASSEMBLY ....................................................................................................................................16
7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................................16
7.1 COSTS ......................................................................................................................................................16
7.2 REVENUE .................................................................................................................................................18
7.3 PROFITABILITY ........................................................................................................................................20
7.4 SCENARIO ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................................................22
7.5 RISK ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................................23
8. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS ..........................................................................................................................25
9. CONCLUSION .....................................................................................................................................................26
APPENDIX A: MECHANICAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................27
APPENDIX B: BUSSMASTER USAGE ANALYSIS............................................................................................28
APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ..........................................................................................................30
APPENDIX D: INTERVIEWS ...............................................................................................................................31
APPENDIX E: OSHA GUIDELINES ....................................................................................................................37
APPENDIX F: CUSTOMER NEEDS HIERARCHY ...........................................................................................38
APPENDIX G: EXHIBITS FOR ECONOMIC ANALYSIS................................................................................39

Page 2
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The BussMaster Team has developed an innovative, practical and improved bussing system for the
restaurant industry. The trade name BussMaster will serve as brand name for the product and will be
part of the product line of Rubbermaid Commercial Products, a division of Newell Rubbermaid.
Newell Rubbermaid Inc. is a global marketer of consumer and commercial products with 2004 sales
of $6.6 billion and a large family of powerful brand names.

This all-in-one system will fill a latent customer need in the marketplace for an efficient and versatile
bussing system. While there are several competitors who sell carts, there are none who offer an
integrative bussing system that is complete with a cart, racks and bins. This is quite advantageous for
the BussMaster, providing additional breathing room to establish itself as the premier brand of
authentic bussing systems.

The purpose of the BussMaster is to eliminate the weight burden on the busboys, while also
decreasing the time it takes to clear and prepare a table for the next customer. Thus, the cart will
improve customer service and restaurant sales increasing turnaround time. The BussMaster will also
provide a labor savings to restaurants be reducing the number of required bussing staff. An additional
benefit is the BussMaster dish rack, which is compatible with standard dishwashers so it does not
interrupt the current bussing and dishwashing process. The specially designed rack and bin system
improves sanitation by having a separate drainage compartment that conceals leftover food. The
BussMaster is equipped to clean multiple tables and expedite back-of-the-house operations. The
product is also intended to help prevent slip and fall injuries that trigger OSHA lawsuits.

We project unit sales of 1,346 in year one of product launch, which will increase to a volume of
2,243 by the end of year two. This will place sales revenue for both the cart and dish/bin sales at
$922,742 for the second year, using a price point of $349.99 for both direct sales to chains and
wholesale market. Management predicts sales of $1.3 million by year three. Year two is our
forecasted breakeven point, and the BussMaster can expect to earn profits of $653,943 before taxes.
The NPV analysis with a 15% discount rate reveals that the BussMaster will be valued at close to $6
million within ten years.

The BussMaster is a manufacturing division of Newell Rubbermaid dedicated to protecting restaurant

workers from injury and improving current restaurant performance via its efficient, versatile bussing
system. We intend to make quality tested products, and earn sufficient profits to generate a fair return
for our parent company and its investors. The BussMaster seeks to foster the enjoyment of the dining
experience for both guests and restaurant staff. We intend to grow business and establish our brand as
a premier leader and innovator in the restaurant supply industry. We intend to finance continued
growth both internally and externally and to develop and develop additional products once our brand
is established. We will conduct our business in accordance with strong values and ethics, and strive
to maintain a fair and creative work environment that respects ideas and hard work of our employees.

The Product Development Team believes the BussMaster will be perceived by the restaurant industry
as an innovative, improved bussing system to be implemented as the new standard for table bussing
and dishwashing. We strongly urge senior management buy-in and prompt investment of $371,609 to
successfully launch the BussMaster while the market is vacant.

Page 3
1. MISSION STATEMENT
The objective of the BussMaster Team, a division of Newell Rubbermaid, is to introduce a
versatile, improved bussing system for the efficient and sanitary removal of dirty dishes and
utensils from public dining areas. The BussMaster Team’s key business goals are the following:
increase turnover time which results in increased establishment sales; serve as standard
restaurant device because it is compatible with industry’s current bussing and dishwashing
system; capture 20-30% of market share before competitors enter market; and eliminate need to
hire additional staff to cover peak hours. The primary market is defined as wholesale restaurant
suppliers, independent restaurant owners, and restaurant franchisors and/or franchisees. These
segments are willing to pay a higher price for our product to improve the current bussing system
in their establishment. The secondary market is restaurant managers and staff, and the end
customer. This segment is more in tune and hands-on with operations in a restaurant, and know
what is necessary to improve the overall dining experience.

The primary assumptions and constraints include the following:

Compatibility with commercial dishwashers and current bussing system

Light, durable components

Aesthetically pleasing design

Compact and portable

Overseas manufacturing of low cost components and final assembly preparation

User-friendly

Easy to clean

Stakeholders in this product include buyers for wholesale restaurant suppliers, restaurant
managers and staff, franchisors and franchisees, end customers, sales team, and manufacturing
operations.

2. CUSTOMER NEEDS ANALSYIS

In developing this product, the BussMaster team set about to identify a set of customer needs.
Both fieldwork and consultation with OSHA documents were used to establish a series of
functional designs in the final product.

In terms of fieldwork, a series of interviews were conducted in the San Diego area at various
restaurants. The interview protocols included questions about the bussing process they currently
use, what they liked and disliked about the current process, if they have considered a cart and the
reasons for and against it. (Appendix C) From these interviews, we then interpreted these needs
(Appendix D) and constructed a customer needs hierarchy (Appendix E) by combining them
with the safety considerations that OSHA specified (Appendix F).

Several key issues emerged, in particular where we can provide the most value for customers as
well as our most likely target markets:

Page 4

The BussMaster satisfies the dimensional specs of a restaurant.

The BussMaster provides plenty of room to store tableware.

The BussMaster integrates the current bussing process.

The BussMaster is easier to set up and use.

The BussMaster satisfies OSHA safety requirements.

The BussMaster fits the aesthetic needs of the restaurant.

We were also able to better define our target market, because aesthetics, volume, and space
dimensions place restraint on purchasing our product. Thus at a preliminary glance we’d likely
target high volume, one level restaurants who do not care much for aesthetics.

3. PRODUCT DESCRIPTION

The BussMaster (Figure 1) is a slim restaurant utility cart with several sliding buss-bins mounted
within its frame. Its special features include:

A low-profile design for maximum maneuverability

Increased storages space for removing dishware and table waste

An optional system of specialized dish racks for dish faster dishware organization and
cleaning

The BussMaster dramatically increases the table-clearing capacity of a single worker, due to its
multiple bins. This translates to real labor savings of approximately $0.03 per customer. What’s
more, the cart’s maneuverable design means these savings can be realized in any restaurant
layout.

The BussMaster itself looks similar to many other utility carts, only considerably thinner and
only waist-high. It consists of three functional parts: a sturdy outer frame, a pair of sliding buss-
bins, and several insertable dish racks.

3.1 The BussMaster Frame

A lightweight wire frame provides structure to the BussMaster. This box-shaped skeleton
suspends the sliding bins between its support poles and provides locations to hang dishrags,
cleaning solution, and other tools.

Frame specifications:

Frame measures 13.25” W x 22” L x 32” H

Angled tubular handle extends out 45 degrees

Attached top shelf

Sliding bins are mounted on rails

4-inch wheels that rotate 360 degrees w/ brakes

320 lb capacity per unit

Page 5
The slim chrome frame measures only 13.25 inches wide and 32 inches tall, allowing the
BussMaster to fit easily between crowed tables at a busy restaurant. An angled tubular handle
extends out at 45 degrees from the top of the cart, allowing workers to easily push or pull the
device. This is attached to the top shelf, supported by four steel poles at each corner. The sliding
bins are mounted to rails attached between each pair of poles, suspended above the cart base.
This whole assembly sits upon four, 4-inch, fully rotatable wheels.

Due to its solid-core, steel construction, the BussMaster has the strength to withstand even the
toughest restaurant conditions. The poles, handle, and wheels are fastened with a secure contact
fit, and the bin rails are bolted to the frame, allowing easy manufacture and transport. The cart
base and top can each hold up to 250 lbs.

The frame’s greatest strength, though, lies in its small size. Its 13-inch cross-section is 2 inches
smaller than the width of the bussing bins themselves, and anywhere from 2 inches to 8 inches
smaller that its thinnest competitors. This means that wherever a worker can walk – through
narrow aisles, between crowded tables and chairs, next to cramped catering stations – the
BussMaster can roll. Despite its low profile, the cart still offers greater bin accessibility than its
competitors due to its system of sliding bins.

Page 6
3.2 The Sliding Bin System

The BussMaster is capable of carrying three standard size buss-bins, one resting on top of the
frame and two suspended from inner rails. The rail-mounted bins are capable of extending over
13 inches outward from the cart. This provides maximum accessibility to the bin’s contents.

Each sliding bin is mounted to a pair of side rails (Figure 2). These permit the bin’s smooth
rolling action and also allow it to be removed from the frame entirely. The side rails are
manufactured from stainless steel, and are mechanically bolted to the outer face of the hi-gloss
plastic bin lip.

Due to the high cost of cart failure, it is essential that the bin mountings hold up under repeated
dish loadings. To ensure this, the slides themselves are rated for weights up to 75 lbs, twice that
of a 35-lb, fully loaded buss-bin. Similarly, the cart must withstand the

Figure 2: The sliding bins can extend over 13 inches outward from the cart frame. This
provides workers greater accessibility to the bin contents.

tipping force of a full, extended bin without tumbling over. A full mechanical analysis of the
situation (Appendix A) allowed the design team to optimize the frame weight so as to support an
extended, fully loaded bin.

The extendable bin system provides an increase in a worker’s table bussing capacity. This
translates to overall labor savings of $0.03 per customer. A breakdown of this utility analysis
may be found in Appendix B. These savings are increased further by the use of the insertable
dish racks.

Page 7
3.3 The Insertable Dish Racks

Included with the BussMaster (and available for

separate purchase) are several custom dish racks that fit
within each buss bin. Although these reduce the
carrying capacity of the cart, the improved dish
organization substantially accelerates the washing
procedure.

Rack specifications:

Dimensions 14” W x 18” L x 4” H

Fits snuggly in bus bins

Rack bottoms have wide mesh for drainage

Racks sit 1.75” above bottom for drainage
(see Figure 3a)

Rack pegs allow for multiple loading
configurations

Racks are injection-molded from polyurethane

Dishwasher safe

In most restaurants, dishes spend a large portion of their

life stacked on kitchen counters, waiting for
dishwashers to sort, rinse, and load them into washing Figure 3: a) The dish rack inserts
machines. The BussMaster racks shorten this pipeline into each bussing-bin, arranging
by allowing the bussing worker to organize cleared dishware as they’re cleared.
dishes while removing them from a table. During each b) After rinsing, a dishwasher
trip: loads the entire rack directly into
the washing machine.
• Dishware is removed from tables and placed
between the pegs of a rack
• Once the worker has finished clearing the table, he or she slides the bin back within the frame
and wheels the cart back to the kitchen
• From here, the dishwasher opens the cart and removes the rack and dishes from each bin

Usually, with an unorganized bin, the dishwasher must now reach for each dirty item, rinse, and
load them individually into a washing machine rack. With the BussMaster racks, though, the
dishwasher rinses an entire bin of dishes at once, and then places the rack directly in the washing
machine (Figure 3.b). This saves considerable time, more than making up for any lost cart
bussing capacity.

An organizational device would not be of much use, though, if it forced bussers to jumble dirty
dishes around in front of customers on the serving floor. Utility testing showed that this is not a
concern with the BussMaster, as loading into a bin rack is over 90% as rapid as using an empty
bin (Appendix B).

Page 8
Do not be deceived by the BussMaster’s design simplicity. This highly optimized restaurant tool
provides managers concrete benefits in several segments of their bussing process:

The small cart profile allows workers to maneuver it to any space on the server floor, without
requiring reorganization of the restaurant layout

Workers can quickly load several tables worth of dirty dishes into the BussMaster’s several
bins, cutting down trips and overall labor costs

Usage of the insertable bin rack further streamlines the bussing process by simplifying the
work of kitchen dishwashers

4. MARKETING
4.1 Market Overview

National restaurant chains and independently owned restaurants provide a large market for the
BussMaster. According to the National Restaurant Association, there are approximately 900,000
restaurant locations nationwide with projected 2005 sales at $476 billion.1 People are dining out
more than they have in the past because of time constraints due to busy lives revolving around
work and family. On average, the typical American consumes 4.2 meals per week in a
commercial setting.2

The hospitality industry is also a potential market for the BussMaster. Hotels and resorts are
expanding their services and have established dining facilities for guests as well as banquet and
catering services for special events and meetings. The American Hotel and Lodging Association
estimates at the end of 2004, there were 47,598 properties nationwide.3

4. 2 Market Segmentation

Primary Target Market

Our primary target market will focus on family/mid-scale restaurant chains and independently-
owned restaurants. Restaurants that fall into this category include casual dining, diners and
buffets. There are approximately 22,600 family/mid-scale and 52,200 independently-owned
restaurants nationwide.

The key characteristics of our primary target market segmentation are quick service, high
volume, large dining spaces and inexpensive home meal replacement. A distinguishing
characteristic of family/mid-scale and independently-owned restaurants is that aesthetics is less

1
National Restaurant Association 2005 Industry Fact Sheet
http://www.restaurant.org/pdfs/research/2005factsheet.pdf
2
Restaurant USA Online (published by the National Restaurant Association), November 2000
http://www.restaurant.org/rusa/magArticle.cfm?ArticleID=138
3
American Hotel and Lodging Association 2004 Industry Profile
http://www.ahla.com/pdf/Lodging-Ind-Profile-2004.pdf

Page 9
important to management. This distinguishing characteristic is the main driver of our primary
target market segmentation.

Primary target market includes:

Chains

Dennys

International House of Pancakes (IHOP)

Souplantation

Todai

Local Independents

Jasmine Seafood

Taste of Thai

Leucadia Pizzeria

Secondary Target Market

Our secondary target market includes casual dining chains and mid-scale hotel chains. There are
approximately 45,200 casual dining restaurants and 22,000 mid-scale hotel chains nationwide.
Restaurants that fall into this category include bar and grills, themed restaurants and ethnic
restaurants. Hotels that fall into this category have room rates that range from $50 to $100 per
night.

The key characteristics of our secondary target market are similar to our primary target market.
They include quick service, high volume, large dining spaces and reasonable prices. These
shared characteristics are the main driver for this market segmentation. Casual dining chains and
mid-scale hotel chains differ from our primary target market because management is concerned
with aesthetics, culture and style.

Secondary target market includes:

Restaurants

TGI Fridays

Chili’s

Chevy’s Fresh Mex

Olive Garden

BJ’s Restaurant and Brewry

Hotels

Holiday Inn

Double Tree

Embassy Suites

Marriott

Best Western

Page 10
4.3 Marketing Plan

We construct the following marketing matrix for the BussMaster. With a startup budget of
$200,000 and follow-up expenses of 3% of gross revenue, we hope to achieve 20% penetration
in our primary target markets and 15% penetration in our secondary market by year 10. Sales
figures are to be checked quarterly to ensure project performance. Contingency planning would
call for increases in advertising and sales expenses should market penetration be slower than
expected.

Product Mix:

Given the wide range of restaurants we are targeting, there needs to be flexibility in the
BussMaster design features, particularly for the secondary markets which have strong aesthetics
concerns. We propose to allow a degree of customization for different market segments to be
more accepting of the product.

For color schemes we offer the entire palette of colors (up to 17 configurations) besides the
standard black and chrome, as well as tailor made color schemes (leopard colored, etc.) for
themed restaurant.

For rack configuration we offer the option of several different pegs to allow for different
organizational schemes for segmented markets. For very high volume segments, we allow the
option of no pegs at all to allow for ease of throwing in tableware.

For accessories we have built onto the cart S-hook to place a variety of kitchen products, such as
towels, menus, and gloves.

Page 11
Pricing Mix:

The pricing mix is determined by two factors: competitor’s pricing points and cost-saving rents
the BussMaster generates. In looking at competitor products which are simply utility carts, we
established a market acceptable range of $200-$550 for the BussMaster. We plan to capture 10%
of the cost savings projected for a restaurant in a year (50000 customers) in the price scheme,
and thus price our product at $349.99.

For future pricing developments, we will also consider bundling sells and price the packages
accordingly for each restaurant.

Placing Mix (Distributional Channels):

The distributional method we have chosen is to sell in bulk to restaurant chains, hotel chains, and
restaurant supply stores and distributors. Direct selling is the most fitting method for the
BussMaster as we plan on capturing several major restaurant chains and wholesalers through
negotiations by our salesforce.

Promotional Mix:

With ramp up marketing of $200,000, we plan on working with an independent market research
firm to do both concept and market testing. As well as having them design print ads in trade
magazines and industry trade shows. We have identified several key trade magazines for our
advertising campaign: National Restaurant News, Foodservice, and Chain Leader.

Another promotional method during ramp-up is to provide free samples for some chains to test
our product and gain market recognition.

5. COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS
Direct Competitive Products

Currently, the utility and service cart industry is highly competitive since most of the leading
commercial and restaurant manufacturing companies produce their own line of carts. There are a
broad range of products ranging from price points as low as $150 to over $500. The carts are
made of a variety of materials including metals such as stainless steel and aluminum to heavy
duty plastics such as polyethylene and polypropylene. There are also a wide variety of innovative
features available including shelf lips to contain spillage, adjustable shelves, on board
accessories, foldable sections for storage and concealment panels.

Although there are several utility and service carts on the market, most function as a standalone
unit rather than an integrative system with dish racks and bins like the BussMaster.

Page 12
Leading Commercial and Restaurant Manufacturing Companies:

Cambro

Carlisle Food Service Products (Division of Carlisle Manufacturing)

Lakeside Manufacturing (Division of Harrison Supply Company)

Admiral Craft Equipment

PVI Food Service (Division of Prairie View Industries)

Vollrath

Examples of Competitive Products:

ALL-PURPOSE CART
BC SERIES UTILITY CART
Manufacturer: Cambro
Manufacturer: Metro
3 shelves with lips
3 18”x28” shelves
1 pc molded polyethylene
Heavy duty plastic
Bolted 5” castors
Open base
500 lb capacity per unit
4 swivel tread casters
Dimensions:
400 lb capacity per unit
33 1/8”x 20”x 33 5/8”
Retail Price: $196.00
Retail Price: $545.00

SERVICE CARTS SERIES FOLD N GO CART

Manufacturer: Carlisle FSP Manufacturer: Carlisle FSP
3 heavy duty shelves 3 31.5”x 18.5” shelves
5” non-marking castors Polyethylene shelves
500 lb capacity per unit ¾” Aluminum legs
Optional accessories: 350 lb capacity per unit
Retail Price: $371.35 Retail Price: $399.95

WIRE SHELF CART

UTILITY CART Manufacturer: AdCraft
Manufacturer: Lakeside 3 wire shelves
3 18”x27” shelves Heavy chrome plated cart
22 gauge stainless steel cart 220 lb capacity per unit
3 ½” swivel castors Shipped knocked down
300 lb capacity per unit Dimensions:
Retail Price: $270.00 18” x 36” x 37.5”
Retail Price: $131.75

Indirect Competitive Products

There are several products on the market produced by the leading commercial and restaurant
supply manufacturers that can be used in the bussing process. The price points of these products
range from under $10 to around $50, depending on materials, features and intended uses.
Products in this category can include bins, trash cans, trays and dish racks.

Page 13
Examples of indirect competitive products:

Brute 32 Gallon Trash Can

Manufacturer: Rubbermaid Bus Box
Professional grade plastic Manufacturer: Cambro
Strong snap on lip Heavy duty hi-gloss plastic
Built-in handles Rim for easy carrying
Removal bottom dolly Dimensions:
15-5/16"x19-15/16"x4 15/16"
4 non marking castors
Retail Price: $4.50
Retail Price: $45.00

TRAY
FLAT BACK BUCKET
Manufacturer: Cambro
Manufacturer: Rubbermaid
Polypropylene tray
Durable plastic w/ handle
Non slip polytread surface
Dimensions: 11.5”H x 25”W
10-9/16" x 13-5/8" diameter
Diameter 16.25”
Dishwasher safe
20 lb capacity
Retail Price: $9.65
Retail Price: $16.00

6. MANUFACTURING
6.1 Bill of Materials

Production requires the following bill of materials for assembly:

Component Materials Unit

Cart Frame Poles+ Extra Weight Hot Rolled Mild Steel (A36) 28.2 lbs

Shelves Stainless steel (S302) 5.5 lbs

Bus Bins Standard Plastic Gray 2 pc

Wheels w/ Brakes Rubber Wheels 2 pc

Wheels w/out Brakes Rubber Wheels 2 pc

Caps Standard Black Plastic 4 pc

Wheel Insert Sockets Caster Sockets 4 pc

Rails for Bins Standard Metal 14" rails 4

Customized Dishwasher Bin Polypropylene plastic 2 pc

Standard PVC Piping 2 ft

Handle
Standard PVC Clamps 2 pc

Page 14
Materials will be sourced from third-parties in China and will be shipped to our overseas
production facilities. Procurement of raw materials will be handled by the production facilities
but will have to meet standard guidelines set by Rubbermaid.

6.2 Overseas Manufacturing

Rubbermaid plans to outsource all the manufacturing and final assembly preparation to
Rubbermaid production plants in low-wage China, and then export the finished goods back to
Rubbermaid’s warehouse in Culver City, CA. The finished goods can be compressed into
breakdown kits consisting of two flat side panels and three flat shelving units that fit into one flat
knockdown box to minimize shipping costs and labor necessary for final assembly. At the
factory, the product will be placed on pallets and loaded into a container and then transported to
the port. The container will be on water for roughly 15 days while it sails to the U.S., and then
trucked to its final assembly site. The cost of ocean freight from China to the U.S. is $2,500 to
$3,000 per container. For a $12 casting, the total incremental transportation cost is $1.10. This is
compared to transportation costs of $.30 for a typical Mexican supplier shipping to the U.S.
Financial assessment of China sourcing should then be made on the total landed cost of a
product-which includes the manufacturing cost differential as well as the full logistics cost.

China is the optimal manufacturing place of the world providing a sound base for outsourcing
strengthened by risk mitigation, raw material savings, and high labor content. China offers
savings up to five times as compared to the United States, an increasing concern as the
BussMaster experiences significantly high production and labor costs in the U.S. The
BussMaster Team does not have a patent on the product, so we are not concerned with producing
key components in-house to protect confidentiality.

Page 15
6.3 Final Assembly

Once the knocked down kits are shipped from China to the Port of Long Beach and/or Port of
Los Angeles, the containers will be trucked to the Rubbermaid’s final assembly facility in Culver
City, CA. Rubbermaid workers will assemble the pre-fabricated parts and prepare the units for
shipping to the end customer. The final product will be shipped via ground freight using logistic
carriers such as FedEx, UPS and DHL.

7. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS

7.1 Costs

Production Costs

Production of the BussMaster requires two separate production processes: the production of the
cart itself, and production of the custom-sized plastic dishwasher bins. Our production strategy
is to minimize total production costs through an optimal combination of
outsourcing and in-house manufacturing.

The cart will be produced using an outsourcing strategy. All components for the cart will be
sourced from existing Rubbermaid suppliers in China, who will pre-assemble the components
and ship them directly to our manufacturing facility in the Culver City, CA as knocked-down
kits. Rubbermaid personnel will perform final assembly and handling operations, which includes
final assembly of the cart, quality assurance testing, and dock loading. This strategy allows us to
maximize the use of cheap Chinese labor while minimizing shipping costs.

Using this method, we estimate a unit production cost for each cart of $68.19. As shown in
Table 1 of Appendix G, our primary cost drivers are materials costs and assembly and handling.
All of the materials will be sourced in China and priced FOB Culver City, which includes the
labor costs for pre-assembly and ocean shipping freight. To estimate these costs, we took the
estimated U.S. retail price minus and a standard wholesale discount, and then applied a 60%
volume purchase discount. As shown in Table 2 of Appendix G, this results in a materials cost
of $41.40 for each cart. Assembly and handling costs are estimated to be $1.22 per cart. This
estimate is based on three assumptions. The first is that the California assembly labor rate is $17
per hour plus a 30% benefits premium, or $22 per man-hour. The second is that each knocked-
down kit will require 120 seconds for assembly and 80 seconds for handling, in sum 200
seconds, in other words, we can make 18 carts per man-hour. Finally, we estimate from prior
experience that 60% of total direct cost is allocated for factory overhead under Rubbermaid’s
activity-based-costing (ABC) system.

Alternatively, our strategy for producing the custom-sized plastic dishwasher bins is to leverage
Rubbermaid’s core competency in plastics fabrication and produce these in-house at our existing
manufacturing facility. Using this method, we estimate a unit production cost for each bin of
$4.79. As shown in Table 3 of Appendix G, we assume a materials cost of $2 per unit to source
the polypropylene plastic material used to cast the bin. Additionally, we estimate that each bin

Page 16
requires 60 seconds for assembling and 80 seconds for handling, in sum 140 seconds. Assuming
a labor rate of $22 per man-hour, we can make 25 dish bins per man-hour, and therefore, the
assembly and handling costs for each bin is $0.88. Finally, we assume a fixed asset capital
investment of $15,000 for the purchase of a custom injection molding cast. Given our sales
projections for the project, the injection cast is expected to produce over 130,000 bins during its
life, which equates to a unit cost of $0.11 per bin.

Capital Costs

The BussMaster project requires up-front capital cost expenditures of $320,000. These
expenditures include the purchase of fixed assets, incremental development costs, and ramp-up
costs.

As demonstrated in the previous section, production costs for the BussMaster are largely
variable, and require little fixed asset capital investment. The project requires a single up-front
fixed asset capital investment of $15,000 for the purchase of a custom injection molding cast at
the beginning of the project (Year 0). This investment will be depreciated using Rubbermaid’s
modified accelerated cost recovery system (MACRS) over its estimated useful life of 7 years,
and is presumed to have zero salvage value at the end of this period. Therefore, a second fixed
asset capital investment of $15,000 will be made in Year 8 to replace the injection mold. The
capital investment and depreciation schedule are highlighted in yellow in Table 4 below:

The marketing group has recommended several design changes and feature enhancements that it
feels are necessary in order to bring the BussMaster to market. Therefore, we estimate that we
will incur an additional $80,000 of production costs in Year 0, which is equivalent to the annual
salary of a Rubbermaid Sr. products engineer plus minor incidentals.

Finally, we estimate that the BussMaster will require ramp-up costs of $240,000 to bring the
product to market. This is composed of two major activities. First, the marketing group has
requested a budget of roughly $200,000 to hire a professional market research firm and conduct
additional concept/product testing. Secondly, based on the launch of similar Rubbermaid
products in the past, we estimate an additional $40,000 will be required to train customer service,
sales and manufacturing personnel on the new product.

Page 17
COGS

Following one year of incremental product design and ramp-up activities, we estimate sales to
begin in the 1st quarter of Year 1. Our cost of goods sold (COGS) will be primarily driven by
advertisement expenses, customer support costs, and salesperson compensation. Rubbermaid has
a strong installed based among restaurant and hotel chains, which helps to reduce advertising
costs. However, since this is a new kind of cart being sold as an innovative bussing system, we
conservatively estimated advertisement costs to be 3% of gross sales revenue. For example, we
will require $3,000 of advertising spend to generate $100,000 of sales revenue. Also, the
marketing group feels that high quality customer support will be crucial to achieving a high
customer repurchase rate. Therefore, based on Rubbermaid’s experience with similar products
we estimate that customer support costs will equal 1% of gross sales revenue. Finally, we
estimate that an average salesperson’s compensation (including base salary + commission) is
$60,000 per year, and each sales person is able to sell 4,000 units per year (i.e. 3-4
restaurant/hotel chains). Therefore, selling 8,000 units is assumed to require 2 salespersons and
compensation of $120,000. Actual figures for all three COGS expenses based on actual sales
(discussed in next section) are highlighted in Table 5 below:

7.2 Revenue

Pricing

Based on competitive analysis and conjoint studies performed by the marketing group, we
believe we can achieve a price point of $349.99 for the BussMaster cart and $29.99 for the dish
bins. As discussed previously, Rubbermaid sells through two distinct distribution channels. Our
sales to family independent restaurants occur through wholesale restaurant supply stores. The
prices given represent our wholesale pricing, and assumes these prices are low enough to allow a
retail markup of approximately 40% by the wholesaler. Conversely, when selling directly to
restaurant and hotel chains, Rubbermaid is essentially acting as the retailer, which allows the
company to capture the entire profit from a sale. However, because chain sales involve large
volume orders, we must provide a volume discount, which we estimate to be 40%. Therefore, we
can use the same price point for both market segments.

Sales

The BussMaster will be sold in two distinct market segments. Based on assumptions from
marketing, we have assumed that sales to the primary segment (Family/Midscale & Family

Page 18
Independents) will achieve a maximum steady state market penetration rate of 20% by year 10,
and that sales to the secondary segment (Casual Dining, Hotel & Resort) will achieve a
maximum 15% market share. Because the BussMaster will be sold as a new kind of cart and an
innovative bussing system, we assume a slow adoption rate during the first two years of sales
that grows quickly and progressively towards steady state share in year 10. The graph below
shows the “S-curves” derived for both market segments:

Market Penetration by Segmant

25.0%

20.0% Primary Segement:

Family Midscale &
15.0% Family Independents

10.0% Secondary Segment:

Casual Dining, Hotel
5.0% & Resort

0.0%
0 2 4 6 8 10
Year

Our pro-forma sales projections are given in Table 6 below. As this table demonstrates, cart
sales are split into two categories: new buyers and repeat purchasers. Moreover in each category
there are two distinct distribution channels. For example, we estimate Year 1 primary and
secondary market penetration rates of 0.3% and 0.2% respectively. This means that 68 primary
target restaurant chains, 0.3% of 22,600 units, and 134 secondary ones, 0.2% of 67,200 units
(note: there are 45,200 casual dining chains and 22,000 hotel chains) purchase our bussing cart.
The marketing team has estimated that each chain restaurant or hotel will purchase an average of
four carts; therefore, the total volume of carts sold would be 1,346 units, resulting in Year 1
chain store sales revenue of $306,591. Likewise, the marketing team has estimated that each
family independent restaurant will purchase an average of three carts per restaurant. Therefore,
we estimate Year 1 wholesale sales revenue of $164,425, resulting in total new cart sales in Year
1 of $471,017.

The second section of Table 6 accounts for repeat cart sales. The engineering group estimates
the cart will have an average useful life of three years, at which time it will need to be replaced.
Rubbermaid customers are very brand-loyal, and after reviewing past Rubbermaid sales data for
similar products, the marketing group believes that it can achieve a customer repurchase rate of
75%. Therefore, repeat purchases are expected to begin in Year 4 and amount to 75% of the sales
volume in yeart-3. For example, the volume of chain store repeat purchase sales in year 4 is 657
units, or 75% of the 876 units sold in Year 1.

Page 19
The final section of Table 6 accounts for dish bin sales. At this time, the marketing team does
not intend to market the dish bins as a separate product. Therefore, dish bin sales will be driven
by restaurants that have purchased the cart and wish to purchase bins as spares, or as
replacements for bins that have been lost or damaged. To calculate bin sales, we have assumed
that every restaurant that purchases the cart will purchase spare and/or replacement bins at a rate
of 4 per year. This produces additional revenue of $82,628 in Year 1. Therefore, total sales in
Year are $553,645.

7.3 Profitability

Income Statement

Table 7 below shows a pro-forma income statement for the first 10 years of the BussMaster
project. In addition to the costs and revenue assumptions discussed previously, the income
statement reflects the following additional assumptions:

Working capital costs are estimated conservatively based on similar Rubbermaid projects to
equal 10% of gross sales revenue

Project profits are “rolled up” into Rubbermaid’s consolidated financial statements and will
be taxed at Rubbermaid’s 35% corporate tax rate

Page 20

This project is deemed to be an average-risk project; therefore, all cash flows have been
discounted using Rubbermaid’s standard discount rate of 15% (risk-adjusted cost of capital)

The income statement shows this to be a highly profitable project. Due to our low production
costs compared to our relatively high sales price, we enjoy a high markup compared to similar
products (contribution margin = 79%). This helps to generate $255,077 in profits from Year 1
sales revenue of $553,645. Based on these projections, the BussMaster will reach the break-even
point within two years, and will generate over $3 million in after tax profits in year 10.

Cash Flows

Table 7 below shows pro-forma cash flows for the first 10 years of the BussMaster project.
Because this project only requires a small initial up-front investment and lacks significant fixed
costs of production, the project actually produces a small positive net cash flow at the end of the
first year of sales. While this is not a typical result of similar Rubbermaid projects, we feel this is
both realistic and speaks to the inherent profitability of the project. Cash flows continue to
increase from Years 2-10, resulting in a Year 10 net cash flow of $3,953,470, or a discounted
cash flow of $778,544.

Applying the project discount rate of 15%, we find that the low initial up-front investment of
$320,000 generates a positive net present value of $5,887,200 in the first ten years of the project.
This represents an internal rate of return (IRR) of 152%, which is far above Rubbermaid’s
hurdle rate of 15%. Therefore, the project is highly profitable from both an NPV and an IRR
perspective.

Page 21
7.4 Scenario Analysis

The profitability analysis given above is built on a “base case” scenario. The assumptions used in
building the base case were derived from a variety of sources that Rubbermaid deem to be
reliable. These sources included Rubbermaid accounting, engineering, and marketing personnel
as well as senior management; analysis of historical data on similar Rubbermaid products and
projects; macroeconomic forecasting; and results of customer surveys and other market research.
To mitigate the risk of error, the project team adopted conservative estimates whenever possible.
However, it is certainly possible that one or more project assumptions could prove to be
incorrect, and have a material impact on the financial performance of the project.

Therefore, we have carefully analyzed our assumptions and performed sensitivity analysis to
determine how changes in these assumptions might impact project profitability. Given the
current stable macroeconomic environment in the US, we feel that inflation poses little risk to the
project, and that changes in interest rates or in the US political environment have very little
chance of significantly affecting Rubbermaid’s cost of capital or corporate tax rate over the next
eight years. The results of our sensitivity analysis showed that the project is most at risk from
changes in assumptions related to market share, product price, and manufacturing cost.

Market Share

The largest risk faced by the BussMaster project is that it fails to achieve the forecasted market
penetration rates of 20% for the primary segment and 15% for the secondary segment. We
performed a sensitivity analysis comparing base case sales revenue and NPV with pessimistic
assumptions (primary market share = 10%; secondary market share = 7.5%) and optimistic
assumptions (primary market share = 30%; secondary market share = 20%). As shown in the
graph below, the impact of a 50% decrease (or 50% increase) in steady state market share causes
a significant variation in project lifetime revenue within a range of several million dollars:

Page 22
 Inpact of Changes in Market Share on Sales Revenue

18,000,000
16,000,000
14,000,000
Base Scenario+ 20% Steady
12,000,000 State Market Share
10,000,000 Optimistic Scenario+ 30%
8,000,000 Steady State Market Share
6,000,000 Pessimistic Scenario+ 10%
Steady State Market Share
4,000,000
2,000,000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Year

The market share assumptions also have a significant impact on project NVP, as shown in Table
9 below:

Table 9: Market Pessimistic Base Case Optimistic

Share Sensitivity
Project NPV: $2,841,372 $5,887,200 $8,958,373

However, it is worthwhile to note that even in the pessimistic case where Rubbermaid fails to
achieve 50% of forecasted market share, the project is still profitable and worth doing.

Product Price and Production Costs

A second risk factor is that Rubbermaid’s estimated price point is wrong. As with any new
product, it is likely that Rubbermaid may need to reduce its price in order to stimulate sales
demand, or conversely, it will be able to raise its price and capture a higher contribution margin.
Furthermore, changes in estimated production costs are just as likely, and exert the opposite
effect to price changes on revenues and NPV. Therefore, we performed several sensitivity
experiments with various levels of pricing and production costs. Our findings were similar to the
market share experiment. Significant reductions (or increases) to pricing and/or production costs
did exert a material affect on sales and project NPV. However, all reasonable estimates of
pricing and production costs resulted in continued project profitability, providing additional
evidence that the project is worth pursuing.

7.5 Risk Analysis

In addition to financial risks, we have carefully identified and analyzed various market and
technical risks faced by the project. At this time, we do not feel that the BussMaster faces any
significant technical risks. The basic product design has been completed, and the product has
been successfully tested with target users. Although engineering activities will continue for the

Page 23
next year to implement enhancements designed to make the product more competitive in the
marketplace, these activities do not involve the resolution of any technical issues that could be
classified as “high” or even “moderate” risks. However, the project does face two market risks
that we feel rank as being “high” or “moderate” and warrant a risk mitigation plan. These are:
lower-than-expected market share and early entrance of a new competitor.

Lower-Than-Expected Market Share

As demonstrated in the Scenario Analysis section, the level of market share achieved by the
BussMaster has a significant impact on project profitability. While it is extremely unlikely that
market share would actually turn out to be so small that the project would become unprofitable,
nevertheless any reduction in estimated market share will significantly detract from the bottom
line.

Therefore, we have developed a contingency plan for this event. We will closely monitor cart
sales in Year 1. If after the first two quarters of sales, sales turn out to be significantly less than
forecast, we will put a full-time industrial designer and a full-time engineer back on the project
to implement design changes recommended by the marketing team in an effort to make the
product more attractive to the target market. Several ideas for such product enhancements have
already been developed and are discussed elsewhere in this document. In addition, feedback
from potential customers who actually considered the product but decided not to buy it will be
carefully weighed. The additional cost of the industrial designer (annual salary = $90,000), the
engineer (annual salary = $70,000), and incidentals such as revision of marketing materials and
additional training costs ($25,000) are estimated not to exceed $200,000, a cost that is
insignificant compared to the lost profits of resulting from any material decline in market share.
However, this would require additional capital investment in Year 1 and push back the project
breakeven point from Year 2 to Year 3.

Early Entrance of a New Competitor

Rubbermaid has taken all possible measures to maintain secrecy surrounding the development of
the BussMaster as to not tip off its competitors. We expect there to be a lag time of at least 1.5
years from product introduction to the entry of a truly competitive product. By this time, the
BussMaster is expected to have achieved significant first mover advantage in terms of both
market share and mind share, which combined with Rubbermaid’s strong brand loyalty and an
estimated 75% customer repurchase rate, should serve to largely negate the impact of competitor
sales.

However, we recognizes there is a strong possibility that a competitor may be, unbeknownst to
Rubbermaid, already in the process of developing a similar product. Moreover, it is possible that
a competitor or a nimble start-up could copy our design and introduce a competitive product
much sooner than expected, particularly if sales of the BussMaster exceed expectations. In either
event, Rubbermaid would be forced to counter this competitive threat and defend its market
share by increasing its advertising spend and hiring additional salespeople. In doing so, we
would essentially adopt a strategy of trying to “outsell” the competition, which would likely
result in an advertising/sales war and detract somewhat from project profitability. However,

Page 24
Rubbermaid should be prepared to take this step for two reasons. First, we presume
Rubbermaid’s higher-than-normal contribution margin will exceed that of its competitors,
limiting the amount of advertising & sales expense its competitors will be willing to incur.
Secondly, additional advertising and sales can be viewed as an investment in Rubbermaid’s
brand equity, that will “spill over” and help increase sales of other Rubbermaid foodservice
products.

8. FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
Future Development Plans are divided into two categories: short-term improvements that focus
on product design and functionality, and long-term improvements that primarily focus on
improving the manufacturing process while still allocating limited resources towards continuous
design and functionality developments.

Short Term

The BussMaster Team has plans to implement the following product extensions before
production and launch:

Introduce variety of colors to match restaurant décor

Attach hang-on silverware bin to avoid spillage

Increase capacity of unit

Attach side panels to conceal and contain cargo

Attach brush on base of cart to act as broom

Limit range of cart colors to two (black and gray)

Improve overall performance via additional product interviews and testing

Long Term

Pending a successful product launch, the BussMaster Team plans to implement the following
improvements after five years:

Construct cart with high density structural plastic to avoid potential rust, dents, cracks, or
chips

Design and insert BussMaster brand of dish racks, bus tubs, accessory line, etc.

Enclosed bus tubs

Solid top shelf base design with small lips to prevent spillage

Add Microban® antimicrobial product protection

Shrink manufacturing costs by at least 20%

Make product environmentally friendly by using all biodegradable products and accessories

Identify and develop accessories for BussMaster product line

Incorporate 3D CAD tools and plastic molding analysis tools

Page 25
9. CONCLUSION
The BussMaster Team thoroughly believes the BussMaster will capture full market potential at
launch for the following three reasons: it is compatible with the restaurant industry’s standard
bussing and dishwashing system, no need to hire additional busboys to cover peak hours or
execute additional product training, and increased turnover results in increased sales and
satisfaction for the establishment. Our Product Development Team only needs $371,609 to
successfully launch the BussMaster to be allocated in the following areas in launch period and
Year 1:

1) Development Costs $ 80,000

2) Ramp-up Costs $ 240,000

Market Research and Concept Testing $ 200,000

Training: Sales and Personnel $ 40,000
3) Advertising $ 16,609
4) Salesteam Commission $ 20,000
5) Purchase Custom Injection Molding Cast $ 15,000 per machine

Total Seed Money!!! $ 371,609.00

Page 26
Appendix A: Mechanical Analysis

Problem

In normal operations, a worker may extend the BussMaster’s

sliding bins several times in a shift. Every time an extended bin
bears a load, it generates a rotational force that must be counter-
balanced. Failure to do so will result in tipping.

Analysis

A moment-balance calculation reveals that the extended bin and

frame are exactly balanced over the inner wheels (Right wheels
in figure A1) when the bin mass is 86% that of the cart.
Assuming a maximum load of 35 lbs per cart4, this presents 2
situations:

1) One bin full, others empty

In this case, the mass of the frame is the only
counterbalance to the extended bin.
Therefore, the cart must weigh no less than:

(35)/(0.86) = 40.5 lbs

2) Multiple bins full

Here, the extended bin is counterbalanced by not only
the frame, but also by any bins connected to the cart. In this case, the frame must weigh
no less than

40.5 – (mass of one or more bins)

Clearly, the “worst-case” is the first situation. To address this, the BussMaster components
together weigh a total of 46 lbs:

4 cold-rolled steel poles 16 lbs

2 wire mesh shelves 5 lbs
4 industrial grade wheels 5 lbs
1 0.25 cold-rolled steel plate (fastened to bottom) 20 lbs
Total cart weight 46 lbs

4
This is a fairly conservative value. Most measurements put the weight of a bin filled to overflowing with ceramic
plates at somewhere between 30 and 33 lbs.

Page 27
Appendix B: BussMaster Usage Analysis
a) Bussing Speed with Empty Bins

To quantify the increase in bussing speed provided by the BussMaster, and translate this to a cost
savings value, dish-loading speeds were measured using an empty bin. For the test, a standard
buss-bin was placed on a kitchen counter. 12 plates in 2 stacks were placed next to this, six 11”
dinner plates in one stack and six 8” bread plates in the other. During each test run, a volunteer
used a single hand to load all of the dishes, one-at-a-time into the bin. This was repeated over
three test runs. From this, an average loading time of 1.52 seconds per dish was determined.

A breakdown of total time and labor savings follows:

Cart w/ 3
Bussing Method Bin Cart w/2 bins bins
Customer Capacity 8 16 24

Load Time Per Dish (sec) 1.52 1.52 1.52

Dishes Per Customer 4 4 4
Load Time Per Customer 6.08 6.08 6.08
Total Load Time Per Trip (sec) 48.64 97.28 145.92

Travel Time Per Trip (sec) 300 300 300

Total Table Clearing Time (load+travel) 348.64 397.28 445.92

Table Clearing Time Per Customer 43.58 24.83 18.58
Customers Cleared Per Hour 82 144 193
Increased Customers Cleared Per Hour 62 111

Wash Prep Time Per Customer, Per Trip (sec) 12.72 12.72 12.72
Total Wash Prep Time Per Trip (sec) 101.76 203.52 305.28

Total Time Per Trip (clearing time + Wash Prep) 450.4 600.8 751.2
Total Time Per Customer (sec) 56.3 37.55 31.3

Labor Cost Per Trip ($5.15/hour) $ 0.64 $ 0.86 $ 1.07

Labor Cost Per Customer $ 0.08 $ 0.05 $ 0.04
Savings Per Customer Over Current Method $ 0.03 $ 0.04
Labor Savings Per 100 Customers $ 2.68 $ 3.58

Therefore, using the BussMaster at its maximum capacity will save approximately $3.58 per 100
customers, and support an additional 111 customers per hour.

Page 28
b) Bussing Speed with Dish Racks

The value of a dish-organizing system would be reduced if it substantially reduced the

bussing speed of workers. Using a procedure identical to that of part a), the time required to load
12 dishes into the BussMaster dish rack was recorded. This time, plus the time spent in the
kitchen moving dishes from the cart to a washing machine rack was compared to that of an
empty bin.

A breakdown of total time and labor savings follows:

Cart w/ 3
Bussing Method Bin bins Cart w/ 3 racks
Customer Capacity 8 24 12

Load Time Per Dish (sec) 1.52 1.52 1.66

Dishes Per Customer 4 4 4
Load Time Per Customer 6.08 6.08 6.64
Total Load Time Per Trip (sec) 48.64 145.92 79.68

Travel Time Per Trip (sec) 300 300 300

Total Table Clearing Time (load+travel) 348.64 445.92 379.68

Table Clearing Time Per Customer 43.58 18.58 31.64
Customers Cleared Per Hour 82 193 113
Increased Customers Cleared Per Hour 111 31

Wash Prep Time Per Customer, Per Trip (sec) 12.72 12.72 0
Total Wash Prep Time Per Trip (sec) 101.76 305.28 0

Total Time Per Trip (clearing time + Wash Prep) 450.4 751.2 379.68
Total Time Per Customer (sec) 56.3 31.3 31.64

Labor Cost Per Trip ($5.15/hour) $ 0.64 $ 1.07 $ 0.54

Labor Cost Per Customer $ 0.08 $ 0.04 $ 0.05
Savings Per Customer Over Current Method $ 0.04 $ 0.04
Labor Savings Per 100 Customers $ 3.58 $ 3.53

The data indicates that the total labor savings from using 3 bins with dish racks is approximately
the same as that of using only the empty bins. Although the rack configuration increases
customer turnover to a lesser degree than the multiple empty bin configuration, it has the
advantage of providing labor savings during all restaurant shifts, busy or slow. Indeed, a
restaurant may benefit by changing the cart configuration to best suit the crowd.

Page 29
Appendix C: Interview Protocol

Here are the questions that we asked during our interview process:

Interview Guidelines
What kind of products do you use to buss
tables these days? Why?
What is the process you use to buss tables
and wash dishes?
What do you like about existing bussing
products?
What do you dislike about existing bussing
products?
What are some complaints that staff have
about bussing tables?
What issues would you consider when
purchase bussing products?
Does your restaurant use a cart for bussing?
Why or Why not?

Page 30
Appendix D: Interviews

INTERVIEW 1

Date: 10/17/2005
Location & Position: Ming’s Chinese Buffet (Busboy)

Summary:

Bussing cart is parked at the corner of the room

Busboys place plates in cart, dishwashers wheel cart to back, restack dishes in rack, then
washes

use the product pretty much all the time during business hours

too ugly to push around the restaurant

big tub is quick to dump plates into

big enough to accommodate all the different plates

no way to divide things up

plates sometimes fall over and break

not much thought has been put into purchasing this because it’s the only thing around

Lessons Learned:

In looking at the whole bussing process, the products need to be accessible to waiters, busboys,
and dishwashers. The cart needs to fit aesthetic needs of the restaurant and have the plates be
loaded easily. An issue raised is that the cart needs to organize the tableware better, and have a
weight control to not be too heavy after loaded. Finally, a latent need we gathered from this
interview is that the product needs to be similar to the products they are using today to be
accepted into the purchasing decision.

INTERVIEW 2

Date: 10/17/2005
Location & Position: Denny’s (Busboy)

Summary:

Uses a bus bin

The bus bin gets very heavy when full

Back hurts at the end of shift

Sometimes have trouble finding a place to set down bus bin

Wish there was an easier way to keep glasses separate from big plates

The bus bin is quick because the plates can be thrown in directly

Lessons Learned:

Page 31
Weight issue is a major concern for busboys, and it would be nice to have something that
minimizes the maximum total weight that could be lifted. Capacity is important, as well as the
ability to separate different types of tableware.

INTERVIEW 3

Date: 10/24/2005
Location & Position: Outback Steakhouse (Busboy)

Summary:

After customers have finished eating, a worker must clear the dishes off of their table and
sanitize the surface

dishes are then taken in back, washed in a steam-washer

“Bussing bins are a miracle”. They allow you to pick up several tables-worth of dishes at a
time. Minimize mess

It’s hard to find a place to set the bin down. Use “A seat or something”. Also, bussing is
hard work. “People think it’s easier than it is” “You’re basically doing bi*ch work all day”

Lessons Learned:

Bussing bins are an integral part of the bussing system but often times have no place to be set
down, perhaps our cart could be a moving platform for the bussing bins, have to think of
someway to have the bins easily accessible while on the cart.

INTERVIEW 4

Date: 10/17/2005
Location & Position: Ruby Tuesday’s (Manager)

Summary:

easier to just dump everything from a table into a big tub rather than make several trips to the
kitchen

are ugly, bulky, heavy, unsanitary

Helped busboys but noticed the weight due to overloading

Lessons Learned:

Again speed seems important for the busboys and the open space of tubs offer a natural choice
for people. Our design needs to have large opening spaces for easy entry of tableware.

Page 32
INTERVIEW 5

Date: 11/3/2005
Location & Title: Soup Plantation (GM)

Summary:

Use Trays (“Professional”, “polished”, “looks better”)

Busboys are eager to overload their trays

Faster table services is an area that needs improvement

Flow of the patrons is very important

Carts need to be held up to “our standards” (cultural)

Willing to pay a high price, their tray cart price= $700

Have tried many bussing carts, but couldn’t find a match

Major problem with those carts: Too big and got in the way

Lessons Learned:

Restaurants do have a need for faster table services and this oftentimes lead to busboys
overloading their trays. Soup Plantation has tried carts but it’s a problem of not finding the right
size that fits their need, they are willing to pay a very high price for such a device. There are
concerns over the aesthetics of the carts themselves, perhaps we need to target a market segment
where looks aren’t as important.

INTERVIEW 6

Date: 11/3/2005
Location & Title: El Torito (Manager)

Summary:

Use BIG trays (looks nicer, cleaner, company policy)

Use tubs in bars where it’s busier, and also it’s a longer way to the kitchen

There exist safety concerns in bars with the high volume and thus the tub is better

Spends time organizing things, usually place cups in trays and hold the plates in the other
hand

Recommend that we visit Gordon Birsch

Lessons Learned:

Bar n Grill Restaurants have a need for carts in their bars, where looks aren’t as important and
the tubs are hidden from view. They also need them there for busier times and lessen safety risks.
The current bussing system does indeed spend sometime organizing the tableware on the trays.

Page 33
INTERVIEW 7

Date: 11/3/2005
Location & Title: Buca di Beppo (Host)

Summary:

Use trays (sanitary, 2 story restaurant)

Sometimes overload trays, too unstable

Around 6 to 7 busboys work per night

Stack up cups on tray, left hand holds plates

Carts might be too big and get in the way

Used to work at TGIF, have better need for carts because of larger space

Lessons Learned:

Spatial constraints seem to be an important issue for people to not choose carts, again re-
directing our target market. There does seem to be a potential labor saving solution for these
restaurants however with carts, as they have to hire 6-7 busboys a night. Again we see the theme
of organizing while bussing, something that seems ingrained in the current bussing system.

INTERVIEW 8

Date: 11/4/2005
Location: Gordon Birsch (Busboy)

Summary:

Use trays for larger tables

Cart would be “nice”

It would be nice if could keep bins in the corner somewhere and take the bins one by one to
different tables

At bars they do use bins, because of constant turnover, and the far trip to the kitchen

Bussing takes some time organizing because if place things off center on the tray it will tip
over

Lessons Learned:

There is a need for carts in these large dining spaces, but it’s important to have them function as
“bussing stations” where the bins could be taken off and taken to tables individually. Constant
turnover and trips to the kitchen is the key driver for buying carts, and again organization seems
ingrained in the bussing process.

Page 34
INTERVIEW 9

11/4/2005
Location and Title: Chevy’s (Waitress & Busboy)

Summary:

Use black bins on carts and trays

Need something that separate and store silverware and dishes

There are some weight issues with the bins as they tend to be overloaded

Need to speed up the dish washing process

Would be nice to have

Lessons Learned:

A good value proposition we’d have would be to focus on streamlining certain aspects of the
bussing process, as clean-up requires both getting the dishes off the floor as well as washing
them in the back. It would be beneficial to design a product that could speed up the process
overall.

INTERVIEW 10

Date: 11/04/05
Location & Position: Vietnamese Restaurant (Busboy)

Summary:

Use carts (easier, quicker, cleaner)

Long tables allow the carts to move around easily

The utility cart used cost less than 100 dollars

An area of improvement is an even smaller cart

Lessons Learned:

Asian restaurants already have the carts built in their bussing culture and they are not as
concerned about the aesthetics of things. While they like their carts today, they also wanted an
even smaller cart that navigate better through their floor space.

Page 35
INTERVIEW 11

Date: 11/04/2005
Location & Position: IHOP (Buswoman)

Summary:

Use utility carts

Hard to put fully loaded bins into cart

Had to balance the bin on knees, very hard

Is it possible to have a slideable bin?

It would be nice to have disinfectants and organizer in the bins.

Lessons Learned:

Again this re-affirms our target market in the cheaper casual dining restaurants, they took a
strong liking to our idea. They bring up an important point that the cart and bins need better
integration between them, because it seemed hard to move the bins in and out of the carts. There
also seems to be a latent need for organization of dishes.

Page 36
Appendix E: OSHA Guidelines

OSHA Worker Safety Guidelines for Clean-up except5

Employer Solutions

Employers have the primary responsibility for protecting the safety and health of
their workers. Employees are responsible for following the safe work practices of
their employers.

Consider implementing recommended safe work practices, including:

During Table Clean-up:

• Provide workers with containers to be used where

possible to carry dirty dishes. Employees must be
warned not to overfill containers, or they will have to
lift or carry excessive weight.

• Provide small rather than large containers, to

limit the amount of dirty dishes that can be
stacked and carried at one time.

Bussing table with container

• If space permits, provide carts to put dirty dishes

and heavy bussing containers on, rather having
workers carry them.

• Choose carts with large wheels that roll

easily, to prevent strain/sprain injuries to
employees from pushing or pulling heavy
carts.

• If space permits, decrease the distance workers

must carry containers. Provide close "stations" to
put bussing containers on that are located near the Bussing cart with wheels
serving and clean-up area, so that the teen worker
doesn't have to return dirty dishes all the way into
the kitchen area.

5
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/youth/restaurant/cleanup_slips.html

Page 37
Appendix F: Customer Needs Hierarchy

The BussMaster satisfies the dimensional specs of a restaurant

*** The BM is easy to use in crowded conditions

The BussMaster provides plenty of room to store tableware.

*** The BM has sufficient capacity to bus multiple tables

The BussMaster integrates the current bussing process

*** The BM is accessible to waiters, busboys, and dishwashers.
** The BM can support itself or fit easily on restaurant surfaces

The BussMaster is easier to use.

*** The BM allows for better integration between cart and bin
*** The BM allows the easy entry of tableware
** The BM is readily usable by people with little training
* The BM controls slippage issues.

The BussMaster organizes the tableware.

*** The BM separates plates, glassware, and utensils.
** The BM can accommodate many different shapes and sizes of dishes and utensils

The BussMaster is light to use.

*** The BM reduces the maximum weight when fully loaded
** The BM controls the amount of weight loaded onto it

The BussMaster is sanitary to use.

*** The BM can hold grime and food waste without wear
** The BM reduces spillage

The BussMaster fits the aesthetic needs of the restaurant

*** The BM conceals the leftovers from customers.
** The BM allows the operator to retain a professional appearance while using device
** The BM is similar in appearance to existing products

Page 38
Appendix G: Exhibits for Economic Analysis

Page 39
Page 40