1. 1
2014 Program Manager Report
Torin Dougherty
8/1/2014

2. 2
Table of Contents
Data Summary: Recycling……………………………………………………………………. 3
My Three Recommendations: Recycling………………………………………………….4-7
Lead Custodian Interviews……………………………………………………………….7-11
History Behind Gustie Ware………………..……………………………………………….13
Competitive Analysis: Gustie Ware……………………………………………...……14-18
Three Recommendations: Gustie Ware……………………………………………….18-22

3. 3
Summary of Data: Recycling
All data used in the following summary was compiled from a catalog of 20­year historical
receipts, provided by the Physical Plant. Reference to these accounts can be found at the index
of this report, or by going to: ​https://gustavus.edu/physicalplant/waste_and_recycling.php​ and
dowloading the pertinent information. Additionally, it is worth noting that at the start of 1994,
Physical Plant’s contract with it’s disposal service partner was renegotiated. Therein, all
recycling and co­mingling accounts from 1994 onward are denoted with a 0, as the school
receives no compensation or expense, no matter the amount of either material.
Waste: By the Numbers
Over 20 independent service providers, each of whom maintains a separate contract
with the Physical Plant, manage waste disposal at Gustavus Adolphus College. In particular, the
majority of trash, paper, and commingling disposal is managed by 2 particular companies, LJP
Enterprise and MWPC. Combined, these two firms account for the collection and disposal of
over 89% of aforementioned materials. A considerable amount of the $31,027, which is the
college’s average trash expense, goes toward the payment of these firms for their services to
the college. However, in recent years, trash expenses at Gustavus have varied widely, with a
standard deviation of 91 being documented between trash disposal expenses. Though the
causality of this deviation is unknown and undocumented, cardboard has shown a similar
deviation, widely deviating around identical academic years. For example, trash disposal was
totaled at $24,000 in 1997, only to increase $10,000 to $34,000 the following year, and then
drop to $29,000 the next year. Returns from cardboard recycling peaked at $658 in 1997,
dropped to $112 the next year, and then rose in tandem with the trash costs to finish at $458. At
$31 per ton, return on cardboard has yielded the college the 2nd largest monetary benefit, rival
only to returns made in scrap metal. With an average of $2072 being made annually, cardboard
represents a valuable commodity whose return should be maximized to highest levels.
Despite the permanent classification of commingling and paper expenses as a 0 charge
to the college, the actual tonnage of both resources has increased remarkably over a 4 year
period. The amount of co­mingled waste has increased from 67570 lbs. in 2009 to 74880 lbs. in
2012, and paper waste has also increased 25 tons, from 46 to 71 tons in the same span of time.
Though it may seem curious that co­mingling and paper waste tonnage have actually gone up
despite the lack of a proportional increase in monetary returns through recycling, policy changes
easing the restrictions for materials to be considered “commingled” can be used to explain this
rapid increase in tonnage. As restrictions for “commingling” became more lax, materials such as
aluminum cans became qualified to be emptied in commingling bins, increasing the overall
tonnage of this category. However, the college’s contract withheld it from receiving any monies
for aluminum cans recycling, while explains why as commingling tonnage went up, recycling
returns tended to stay constant.
Waste Generation: What’s Behind the Numbers?

4. 4
Though it would no doubt be tempting to try and draw correlations between the amount
of trash created and the amount of monies earned by the school through recycling, the author
has concluded that there is simply not enough information for him to make any accurate,
credible, assumptions. The lack of circumstantial evidence, withstanding historical receipts,
makes it very difficult to gain a qualitative context of recycling at this college. Furthermore, flows
of trash, commingling, and paper were not segmented specific to academic buildings or
residential halls, making it impossible to deduce and contrast the efficiency of recycling among
different buildings around campus. Though the idea did arise to have individuals with more
expertise analyze the historical data, the amount of physical data available to cross examine
would of been extremely small, and would of been unhelpful to form any correlations.
Improving Recycling at Gustavus: A 3 Step Process
Rather than proposing three independent, resolutions that would function as alternatives
to the current recycling program, care has been taken to create a layered system of
recommendations, all of which would aim to satisfy the common goal of increased recycling.
Integrated into the existing program, each recommendation would ensure continuity, creating a
cumulative, three step plan of action. Solutions themselves are ordered by estimated time into
action, ranging from a span of several weeks to several years.
The Process:
1. Uniformity
2. Customization
3. Education
Recommendation #1: Uniformity
The primary focus for the first recommendation would lie upon the creation of a uniform bin
system across the college. Historically, any tendencies or policies toward the use of bins have
been laissez faire; and a wide assortment of bins has been utilized across campus to date. The
author witnessed this after touring a
large number of campus buildings. In
general, bin and signage conditions
were best at larger academic buildings
such as Beck Hall, Nobel Hall, and Lund
Center. In these buildings, almost all
floors had identical bins, and signage for
each waste category was clearly, and
appropriately marked. Most importantly,
the majority of bins were placed in
practical and unobtrusive locations,
where disposal was convenient and
efficient.
The story was a little different in
administrative and residential halls,

5. 5
where many buildings, and even floors had different bin systems. Bins themselves ranged from
blue Slim Jims, such as the one’s seen above, to rudimentary waste baskets in office halls.
There was little if any continuity between the signage of bins in these buildings, and some
buildings did not have any signage at all for certain bins.
Another significant issue was the fact that in dormitory rooms, there were only two bins,
only one of which was dedicated to “recycling”. However, in the very same halls of these
buildings, recycling was further segmented into three separate bins, co­mingling, paper, and
cardboard. This naturally caused confusion amongst students, who upon dumping all
“recyclable” material into their room bin, would have to handpick to and separate this waste into
the respective commingling, paper, and cardboard hall containers. According to custodial staff,
this inconvenience often led students to simply dump the contents of their room bin into the
trash instead, multiplying the tonnage of waste. Though no data could be found to calculate the
exact amount of recycling being wasted in residential halls, the author believes it is a significant
enough issue that should be addressed immediately.
Recommendation #2: Customization
After subjecting all receptacles and adjoining receptacles to a period of confinement, the next
step would be to break that very uniformity and specialize. Through a methodical process of
waste audits, waste stream analysis, and joint discussion with custodial staff, the goal of this
recommendation would be to find the ideal type, number, and location of every waste bin at
Gustavus in order to maximize recycling. From floor to floor, and building to building, every
recycling, trash, commingling, and paper bin would be scrutinized, till the optimal condition was
found. Once effective locations were recorded, bins would be placed in these positions
permanently, and their designations added to the bin map.
Waste Audit: ​A formal empirical process, waste
audits would be used to quantify the amount and
types of waste being generated in certain
buildings or even bins. Rather than arbitrarily
placing bins in spots people “might” use, an audit
would be critical in honing the effectiveness of
existing waste management. Furthermore, by
measuring volume, contaminated recyclables,
and other statistics, audits could be used to
determine the composition and quantities of
waste being generated. Most importantly, waste
audits would be vital in the process of collecting
building specific and baseline data, both of which
were crucially missing in Physical Plant’s own
online waste and recycling assessment.
The Audit itself would take the following steps:

6. 6
1. Plan the audit, and define the parameters of the experiment.
2. Collect waste, recycling from the designated bin.
3. Sort the waste into different categories, record significant information.
Waste Analysis: ​Upon data collection, analysis would begin to make sense of any significant
statistics as well as to further any pattern or trends between bins. Mathematical algorithms and
statistics would allow the Physical Plant to gain a precise figure of each bins output as well as
the bigger scope and condition of their program.
Custodial Advising/Final Placement: ​Multiple waste audits and one analysis later, the permanent
placement for a bin would be chosen, with the help of the resident custodian. The researcher in
charge would explain his data, as well as his own interpretation of the situation to the custodian,
who would in turn offer their own input. Bringing both the experience of the custodian and their
factual knowledge of the researcher together, a final review of and placement decision of the bin
would be made. Once formed, this decision would be final and the bin would undergo any
necessary changes, before being recorded in the bin map.
Recommendation #3: Education
The most extensive of recommendations, education of students would seek to fulfill the
long­term commitment of a more conscious and environmentally minded student body. This
could only be done accomplished by providing an opportunity for students to derive value from
recycling, which would in turn, necessitate their own need for recycling and other green
initiatives. The larger the student body could become involved, the more the recycling rate
would improve, as student actions and perceptions would change from that of carelessness and
apathy to that of respect and mutual cooperation.
Practical application of this policy would be reliant upon the Physical Plant who would be
the sole organization in a position of power to institute such a change. Before anything, the
department would have to review any policy or regulations that might be violated by allowing
student involvement in its operations. For example, it would be vital to review the departments
waste and collection contract with it’s providers, before it decided to allow students to collect
aluminum cans for monetary incentives. Once contractual obligations were cleared, Physical
Plant could begin the process of creating and planning organizational opportunities. Whether
increasing the number student employees who manage recycling collection, or offering new
internship positions for students interested in the management of recycling/waste disposal, a
myriad of opportunities could be created to promote involvement. Experiential learning,
leadership, environmental research, class credit and monetary incentives are a few of the many
angles that could be used to attract students. In some University of California institutions for
instance, an independent student organization was delegated to the task of improving waste
disposal, utilizing green funding to push pro­recycling policy, and promote greater student
participation. If powerful enough, I believe a similar type of organization here at Gustavus could
achieve similar results, making a serious long­term improvement.

7. 7
​Lead Custodial Interviews:
The following interviews took place between July 7​th​
and July 19​th​
of this summer. In each 1­2
hour­long conversation, lead custodians of academic or residential halls were asked for their
opinions regarding A) proposed recycling initiatives and B) Gustie ware recommendations.
These summaries do not represent the sum of interviews conducted during my summer
internship, but only the handful in which large quantities of notes were collected.
Interview: 001
Interviewee: Jennifer Warren
Location: Confer­Vickner
Date: First week of July
T: Hi Jennifer, nice to meet you. As Larry might have mentioned, my name is Torin, Torin
Dougherty, and I am working for the Physical Plant and Dining Service as an intern this
summer.
Jen: Ohh that must be interesting.
T: Actually it really has…Anyway, I wanted to talk with you today because most of my work
actually revolves around what you do, which is recycling. My goal this summer is to improve to
the recycling program here at our school, as well as fix the Gustie ware program, which I am
sure you are familiar with. Anyway, I wanted your opinion on a couple of recommendations I am
considering, as well as any advice you can give me about some solutions that might make
recycling more efficient.
Jenn: I’d be more than willing to help. Sounds like a cool project.
T: Ok, thanks. I guess my first question is what academic or residential halls are you in charge
of?
Jenn: Well, during the summer, things get a little scrambled but during the regular school year, I
watch over Arbor View, Chapel View, 7​th​
Street Apartments, as well as this building, Confer
Vickner.
T: And out of the building you are in charge of, which ones would say you spend the most time
in?
Jenn: Probably this one and Chapel View. This is not a very large building, but a lot of students
pass through it during the academic year, so it needs a lot of attention.
T: As of this moment, do you have any issues with the recycling program or Gustie ware? How
well of a job do you think students do in recycling?
Jen: Well I have been here at this school for a while, but in the buildings that I have monitored I
haven’t really had any serious issues with the students and recycling. I’d say the staff and
admin are more of a problem, if anybody is to blame.
T: Hmm…that’s interesting. What do you think of the signage of recycling bins around campus?
After touring many of the major academic and residential halls, I have noticed that many
buildings have inconsistent or contradicting signs. For example, in some places, there are blue
laminated signs that the school has put up.. in other places leads have had to make their own
signs. There is not really a standardized or organized system, which I think could really be
improved.
Jenn: I agree…. I think if someone said “Look from here on out, everyone is going to use these
labels or xx signs, it would be a lot easier for students to distinguish where they were supposed

8. 8
to properly dispose of their waste. I know that in Sohre and Pittman, they have blue laminated
signs, which are posted to the wall, which seem to work pretty well. Maybe if we just made those
the standard, and then got everyone to use a uniform set of bins, the recycling might look a bit
neater.
T: That’s a good idea. I am definitely to going to suggest that during my presentation. As for the
possibility of standardizing new bins, do you have any particular preference on whether we
should purchase new bins, or just use the ones at hand? During my research, I examined a lot
of different types of bins based on, weight, volume, size and what not, and one of the best
options I came up was this. (Show picture of Wastewatcher disposal system) What are your
initial opinions about these bins? Do you think they would work if we standardized them across
campus?
Jenn: Hmm..(Takes a good long look at the picture)..Well, they seem really nice, but is the
school going to be able to afford them?
T: Yup, they are reasonable enough to where the school could consider making a full purchase.
Jenn: So does each bin have it’s own sign, or are those laminated illustrations attached to the
walls?
T: Actually they are attached to the bins themselves. They have three small connectors on the
back of the lid, which essentially allows you to attach and replace the signage on the posters.
It’s a lot more convenient than posters, as the bins can be placed outdoors or places where
placement of a poster would not be possible.
Jenn: That is a good point. Plus, if they were all standardized, it would be really easy to replace
or change signs for any bin if we needed to. Having a different color for every bin is nice too,
students would be able to easily recognize which bin is trash, recycling, co­mingling and then
just go down the aisle, “plop, plop, plop” putting their waste in each bin accordingly.
Larry: Yeah, that is one of the highly touted aspects of the Waste watcher system…pretty much
making an assembly line for garbage so it is easy as possible for students to dispose of their
waste properly.
T: Moving onto another important topic or area of concern, where do you think these bins would
best be located? Considering that this bin system might include a compartment for Gustie ware,
should it be placed where the Gustie ware bin is now, or where the trash is located?
Jenn: Well I don’t think there's a problem with the current location of Gustie ware (bottom floor
door of Confer Hall), so if I were to place the bin system anywhere, I would move to where
Gustie ware is currently located. Gustie ware also gives off a pretty strong smell, especially after
it’s been sitting in the bin for a while, so moving it by the door helps to air out the odor. Also,
bugs and other insects love to hang around the bins, so keeping these things by the doors
would help to push any bugs that might be hiding in the trash outside. Plus, you talked about
composting..With that it is going to be even worse, so these bins should really be by the door.
T: Hmm...Well I can definitely say I never thought about that and those are really good points.
The issue with the bugs is completely unacceptable, and both Dining Services and the Physical
Plant directly relate that with a lack of collection responsibility. I have strongly advised for the
creation of a regular collection service in my recommendations to both departments, so that
should not be an issue starting from next semester. Besides that, do you have any more
suggestions for me, either about Gustie ware or recycling?

9. 9
Jenn: Well, I have always wondered what would happen if you offered a bounty or reward for
Gustie ware. Students don’t feel obligated to return containers because they are not responsible
or held accountable for what happens. However, if you offered some kind of reward, say 50
cents a container, you could encourage students to take back their dishware and what not. I
know some people are rich and wouldn't care, and some people might be too lazy, but I am sure
you could have a few hardworking people such as yourself, who might be inclined to bring back
large amounts of plates and stuff for cash. Just a thought.
T: Well that is an idea we have considered, but the one problem is theft. Steve is afraid that an
opportunistic person might start stealing and returning other individuals containers for cash, or
that they might even start taking from the Gustie ware collection bins themselves, and then
demanding cash for plates and utensils they did not even bother to collect on their own.
However, your suggestion is legitimate and worth considering, and many have suggested such
incentives might improve Gustie ware retention. I’ll further my research in the area, and let you
know if I come up with anything promising. Other than that, I have no more questions for you, so
unless you have something you want to ask me, I’ll let you get back to your job. Thanks for
taking the time to talk to me, even though you're busy. It means a lot for my project.
Jenn: No problem, thanks for listening to what I have to say!
Interview: 002
Interviewee: Tom Fleming
Location: Complex
Date: First week of July
T: Hi Tom, it’s finally nice to meet you! I suppose that since Larry already introduced me, as well
as my purpose, I will just move onto my questions that I have for you. At any point in this
interview, if you have to go somewhere, or have something to do, let me know, and we can
continue this another time. I know you are pressed for time, so I’ll try to make this as quick as
possible.
Tom: Actually, times not that big of an issue. I just have to do a couple minor things later on, so
we should definitely should be able to finish this up by today.
T: OK sounds good. My first question is, what dormitory or academic halls are you a responsible
for?
Tom: Well I’m a lead custodian for Nobel Hall and North Hall during the regular year. However,
during the summer, I help out in a large number of residential halls, such as Uhler, and
throughout the halls of Complex. It really depends on the day as well. With all the new camps
and what not coming through, it get’s real hectic around here, so I find myself in a lot of places.
T: When Larry and me visited Nobel, it seemed like every classroom had a trash and recycling
bin. Is the same for staff office spaces as well?
Tom: Yup.. We try to keep it consistent for both students and staff so that it’s easy as possible
to make the right decision, in terms of recycling.
T: And how well do the staff and students recycle in Nobel?
Tom: Well in the academic halls, I would say it’s pretty good. If the trash and recycling cans are
there, and they're empty, I would say that 80% of students and staff put their waste in the right

10. 10
bins. It’s a whole another story in the dorms though. That’s where a lot of recycling get put into
the trash.
T: Do you mean that student’s just litter and leave garbage everywhere, or that they improperly
dispose of it? I visited North and Sorenson, more than a couple times last year, and there trash
bins were overflowing. More troubling though was that there were a lot of bags of recycling in
the trash.
Tom: I would say it’s both. A lot of kids just throw their mess near the hall bins, and then expect
us to clean it up. Like you said, the ones who actually dump their bins into the curbies do it
incorrectly, which causes all the recycling to go to trash.
T: What about Gustie ware? Do students or staff properly dispose of Gustie ware in the
academic halls you administer, and is it any better or worse in the dorms?
Tom: I think the same situation applies for Gustie ware. It’s just an absolute mess in Complex
during the regular year. Students just leave their dishware in the bathrooms, lounge, their
rooms, pretty much everywhere except where there supposed. It’s not our job, but we have to
keep the buildings clean, so we end up having to pick all their stuff up. It’s a real big hassle and
it’s a lot of work for us….Nobel isn’t too bad in terms of Gustie ware. We have this small
rectangular bin, about 12x12
T: Oh yeah, the collection bin, I saw that.
Tom: Yeah, we use that to dump any spare pieces of Gustie ware we find lying in the halls and
what not. Students have also picked up on it, and most of them dump their coffee cups and stuff
in there, so that’s been a good help. Some of the teachers are pretty bad though… I’ve seen
stacks of plates accumulating in a couple prof’s offices, and the smell got so bad to the point
where we had to return them.
T: Jeez, those must of really smelled!
Tom: There was mold growing and bugs flying around….I just don’t understand why they can’t
go and return them. It’s not too hard.
T: Yeah, thats sound pretty bad. In one of my recommendations though, I have strongly advised
for the creation of a collection service run by Dining Service, which would be tasked with regular
collection and return of any to­go containers. Essentially, they would drive around campus, 5
hours a day, 5 days a week, and empty every Gustie ware bin in every dorm or res. hall. I also
suggested more collection bins as well, as it seems the current amount of bins isn’t adequate.
Hopefully, that would get rid of the insect infestation issue that a lot of leads have been
concerned about, as well preventing you from doing more work.
Tom: Yeah… that sounds like a good idea.
T: On another note, Warren briefly noted that Complex had some problems with the use of the
garbage chutes. Are the problems that I am trying to solve in anyway connected to these
issues? Is there any way in which I might be able to improve this situation?
Tom: Well, we had a problem with the Gibbs chute last year, where students kept cramming the
contents of their bins into the chute. Because they kept jamming their bags down the
passageway, a couple bags eventually got stuck halfway down the chute. It was a really big
fiasco and we had to call a repair crew to actually get in there and manually unclog it. It cost the
school a small fortune too.

11. 11
T: It seems like the same issue this building has suffered with hall curbies and Gustie ware.
Students are very lazy and just don’t really seem to care.
Tom: I guess so.
T: Well…. you have answered all my questions very thoroughly and provided me with a good bit
of information. Is there anything I can do for you? Do you have any advice for me, regarding the
three recommendations I summarized at the beginning of our interview? It can be about Gustie
ware or recycling, or anything that you would like to communicate. I can also anonymously pass
on any concerns you might have about the department as well during my presentation.
Tom: Well, I don’t really have any concerns, except for the things we talked about. Can you tell
Warren that the fiberboard situation is still unclear though?
T: Can you explain the situation a little more... I’m not exactly sure what you're talking about.
Tom: Well, LJP stopped picking up fiberboard, so we have been putting it to the side of the main
trash pick up, out behind Gibbs by the parking lot. But every time our shift ends, the student
janitors keep dumping the boards back into the trash. We’ve tried to stay late and tell them that
LJP doesn’t do collections for fiberboard anymore, but we can never find the kids who are doing
the dumping.
T: That’s a easy problem I can definitely fix. In fact, I’m talking to Warren today, so I’ll be sure to
mention it.
Tom: Thanks, that would be a big help. I’ve tried calling Warren a couple times, but he’s always
busy so I can never get a hold of him.
T: Ok, well I’ll definitely make sure that gets fixed.
Tom: Sounds good. Well, good luck with your project. Let me know if there is anything else I can
do.
T: Again, thanks for taking the time to meet with me. Your input is critical to the success of this
project, and I’ll make sure to address some of your concerns.

12. 12
A microwavable plastic container with a round translucent top. Or a molded plastic article with a
In the most literal of terms, that’s what Gustie ware is. Plastic dishware.
Yet the students or staff doesn’t call them plastic dishware, or to­go containers. There called
Gustie ware for a reason. From the distribution of the containers to the collection in bins, the
Gustie ware program is an organization that actively incorporates the values of Gustavus into its
daily operations. Staff trusts the students to take responsibility for the Gustieware they take, and
to return them to the cafeteria. The program also reflects the commitment to excellence in our
college, as Gustie ware has brought the college one step closer toward the goal of
environmental sustainability. Even the very origins of the program are rooted in the school’s
ideal of service learning, as it was a student who originally came up with Gustie ware during his
service learning class.
As a student who is only briefly passing through this institution, I do not seek to change these
core values of Gustie ware or Gustavus Adolphus College. My only aim is to improve the
existing system at hand, and if necessary, offer alternatives, which still work in tandem with the
core tenants of this institution. Hopefully, my work below will reinforce this idea.
Thank you,
Torin Dougherty

13. 13
History:
Though several attempts were made to adopt reusable containers in the past, it was only
until the 2008­2009 academic school year that these ideas were actualized into the current
Gustie ware program. After accruing several key sponsorships to meet the initial operating
costs, Gustie ware was finally introduced to students, amidst much anticipation and speculation.
Not only new to the college, but a new innovation in college food management, Gustie ware
received much media attention, appearing in numerous higher education journals. Highly touted
for it’s distinct “honor” system, in which students were able to take and return Gustieware freely
as they pleased, the program was also noteworthy for its use of Nordic ware containers.
Produced in St. Louis, Minnesota, Nordic ware produced the first and only model
that Gustavus would use for it’s Gustie ware program. Featuring a “composite material bottom
with a clear plastic snap­on lid”, Nordic ware was chosen as the sole supplier of containers for a
number of reasons. Firstly, the containers themselves were purported to survive hundreds of
trips to the dishwasher, and their hard plastic bottoms were considered much more durable than
Tupperware, or other popular alternatives. Operating in the greater Minneapolis area, Nordic
ware was also a local business, and adopting their products strengthened the Dining Service’s
commitment to support “local” businesses and farms. Lastly, Nordic ware was chosen as the
supplier of Gustieware due to the firm's multiple initiatives in environmentally sustainable plastic
production. Marketed as yet another approach to increase the environmental stewardship of the
college, it was only logical for Gustie ware to implement products, which reinforced its
commitment toward a “green” campus. Aiming to “​meet the needs of our campus community,
meet sanitation codes from the Department of Health, and save some trees in the process,”
Nordic ware was seen as the ideal supplier of Gustie ware containers.
Costs:
After the first year of operations, total expenses for the Gustie ware program amounted
to an estimated $21,000.00. An initial investment of $20,000 was made to purchase 5,000 units
of Nordic ware, the amount expected by Dining Services to keep Gustie ware running without
inventory shortage. Besides this, an estimated variable cost of 1,000 was incurred for the
expense of cleaning and washing all dirty Gustie ware. Most critical however, was the serious
loss of Gustie ware containers at the latter end of the academic year. With over 75% of
containers either lost or stolen, only “1200 of the 5000 initial Gustie ware” could be accounted
for, driving replacement costs for lost containers as high as $19,000. Though a serious area of
concern, high replacement costs were largely dismissed by the Dining Services as “part of the
learning curve”, and that “once ​community members embraced the program as one that ‘has
always been” replacement costs of Gustie ware containers would also shrink dramatically.
Environmental Footprint:​ Despite the unanticipated replacement costs of to­go
containers, the Gustie ware program was remarkably successful in lowering Dining Services
environmental footprint. 46%, and 55,000 fewer cardboard containers were reported as part of
the waste stream of Gustavus reduced disposable container use. Most impressively, Gustie
ware was even proven to be more economically viable than cardboard disposables, as long as
they were used and returned more than once. (1.12)

14. 14
Competitive Analysis:
The following summary will examine how Gustavus competitors, (id est other MIAC
schools), are approaching and or implementing RTC programs. With similar spending budgets,
class sizes, and student body, MIAC schools serve as the ideal template to compare Gustie
ware. By studying the overall effectiveness of their RTC programs, as well as their particular
strengths and area of underperformance, we can further develop a plan of action, which will
would make the Gustie ware program more effective. The following list outlines all MIAC schools
and any information that could be gathered regarding RTC programs at their college.
Augsburg College: Dining contracted out to A’viands food management. A’viands has also
replaced the cups, plates, plasticware, napkins, straws, and to­go containers used at Coopers
Coffee Shop, Nabo, and Murphy’s with biodegradable, compostable, and recyclable
“Greenware.”
Bethel University: Dining contracted out to Sodexo Quality of Life Services. The college “proudly
gives students the option to grab food and beverages in reusable containers and encourages
the use of reusable mugs for coffee and other warm drinks.”
Carleton College: Dining contracted out to Bon Appetit. All disposable items, including to­go
containers at two of the four cafeterias are compostable.
Concordia College: 1 of 4 MIAC schools with self­operated dining departments, Concordia
utilizes a “reusable to­go container” program that is not unlike Gustie ware. One key difference
in the Cobber’s program however, is that students are required to make a deposit for their to­go
container. Each student is then allocated a participation card, which is then exchanged at the
service counter for a container. Both dirty containers and participation cards can only be
exchanged for new to­go containers, preventing theft of containers for cash.
Hamline University: Dining contracted out to Sysco foods, segment of Aramark Corporation. No
reported use of RTC’s and high probability that the college uses disposable dishware.
Macalester College: Dining contracted out to Bon Appetit. There was a campus wide use of
disposable paper dishware, and reusable to­go containers specific to its main cafeteria. ​For no
extra charge, students and faculty can check out to­go containers when they order an item from
the main cafeteria. Return is left to the discretion of the students and staff.
College of Saint Benedict: A self operated cafeteria, CSB currently does not make use of any
RTC’s, though it is considering the option in the future.
St. Catherine University: Dining contracted out to Sodexo Quality of Life Services.
Eco­Clamshells are offered as an alternative to established use of disposable to­go containers.
Saint John’s University: A self operated cafeteria, CJU currently does not make use of any
RTC’s, though it is considering the option in the future.

15. 15
Saint Mary’s University: Dining contracted out to Chartwells Campus Dining. College has made
use of ​reusable corn mugs and reusable shopping bags in its to­go program, but no to­go
containers are currently being used.
St. Olaf College: Dining contracted out to Bon Appetit. St. Olaf’s food services operation offers a
reusable bag for its bag lunch area and provides a discount on the coffee price to students and
guests who bring their own cups. However, the to­go containers themselves are disposable.
University of St. Thomas: A self operated cafeteria, St. Thomas still has not implemented an
RTC program.
Data Summary: Only 4/12 MIAC schools
made use of RTC programs, and out of this
mix, three of the schools operated their own
dining service. Despite having access to
Eco­Clamshells, third party food
management firms such as Aramark and
Bon Appetit were reluctant to adopting RTC
programs, instead consorting to offering
RTC as an alternative. In many cases,
RTC’s were only implemented at institutions
because of large student support and action,
and as a whole, it seemed clear that third
party contractors would much rather use
disposable to­go containers if given the choice.
Upon comparison of other MIAC schools and their RTC programs, a number of key
observations were made that provided insight into the daily workings of each take­out program.
Implemented correctly, this data could then be adapted into our own Gustie ware program,
providing an opportunity for advancement or greater efficiency while minimizing mistakes from
the lack of experience.
One preconceived notion that was easily dispelled through analysis of other MIAC
schools and their RTC programs was the issue of theft. Before closer inspection, it was widely
believed that implementing an RTC program in which people paid for the use and of to­go
containers would result in students stealing other individuals containers and returning them for
cash. However, after visiting several MIAC schools which charged students for admission into
their RTC program, this was clearly not the case. Students were never desperate enough to
steal others containers, and the use of tokens widely prevented such criminality. For example, if
a student were to steal another student’s to­go container and attempt to return the container,
they would only receive a token or another container as compensation. Essentially substituting
plastic coins or bottle caps for fiat currency, the use of tokens voided any opportunity for thieves
to profit, allowing transfer of payments between students and the RTC program to occur
smoothly.
Another significant concept that was gleaned through studying rival college RTC
programs was that to­go containers should always try to be accepted in one location, instead of

16. 16
dispersed across multiple dining venues. Choosing one area of return would eliminate the need
to transport to­go containers from cafeteria to cafeteria, which was a large time commitment
previously encountered at Macalester College. In order to counter the problem, the college only
started accepting to­go containers at the main cafeteria, which saved both time and money for
the institution.
A successful strategy to increase the use of RTC’s, raising the price of disposable
alternatives was a practice that numerous other colleges also reported successful with. . After
announcing the debut of an RTC program, many colleges (3 out of 4) also highly publicized a
price hike in disposable boxes. The desired effect of such actions were to: A) increase the
students price sensitivity to disposables and B) highlight how TLC’s were more cost effective to
students in the long term. In most scenarios, price increases in disposables coupled with
introduction of RTC’s were successful, and had measurable results in increasing number of
RTC user’s. Simultaneously raising the prices of boxes by 50 cents while introducing a new
system overhaul, Dining Services could dramatically increase the usage of Gustie ware if need
be.
The most successful and widely utilized strategy, heavy promotion of RTC’s from a
“green” angle was a tactic that practically every school implemented. Touting the environmental
merits of RTC’s, such as less waste, and decreased carbon footprint, colleges heavily marketed
their programs as an opportunity to “make a difference on an individual level” regarding the
issue of climate change. Moreover, involving “green” campus organizations to facilitate
awareness about RTC’s was also a very effective marketing strategy. Though tending to be a bit
more disorganized, using school clubs to raise awareness allowed students to become directly
involved in the program, creating a vital sense of ownership and responsibility. Green
organizations also pushed students in many ways the school could not; peer pressure was no
doubt a powerful factor in getting students to adopt a new product.
Recommendation Introduction:
Upon review of all quantitative and qualitative data gathered, three formal
recommendations have been outlined which I believe would best improve the success of the
Gustie ware program. Although arranged in order of complexity,​ every​ improvement strategy
will entail a ​serious commitment to change from Dining and Physical Plant staff. ​Projected
cost estimates and analysis have been derived from 2008­2009 Gustie ware data, as well as
modeled future costs.

17. 17
Calculations:​ All “Year One” costs were base expense as there was no return to investment.
I.S. #1: Regular collection: 20% improvement in Gustie ware replacements. 4750 saved every
year.
Base expense calculated as equivalent of one employee working 5 hrs. day for $10.00/hr. X 5
days a week X # of months. =$­10,800. ­10,800+4750=­6050. ­6050+4750=­1300.
I.S. #2: Ozzi system. 65% improvement in Gustie ware replacements. 12350 saved every year.
Base expense calculated as (Ozzi machine+misc items) X 4 machines­­(This assumes 4
machines will be necessary)=­67840. ­67840+12350=­55490. ­55490+12350=­43140. At “Year
5” there is an additional $15,000 expense tacked on for any repairs/replacement of parts that
may take place.
I.S. #3: Charging system: Exponential improvement from 20%­75% in Gustie ware
improvements. Amount saved ranges per year. The first year, many students will opt to decline
use of charged system. However, over a 10 year span, it is assumed the majority of students
will transfer to use of the charge system. Base year expense is calculated as $11 Din. Service
salary X 9hrs./day X7 days a week X 5 weeks X 7 months=$24255+$1925 tokens
cost=$26,180. $26,180­4750=­21,430. Note that every year % improvements increase by 7%
due to increased student use.

18. 18
I.S. #1 I.S. #2 I.S. #3
Year
1:
­10800,1
­67840,1 ­26180
Year 2: ­6050,2 ­55490,2 ­21430
Year 3: ­1300,3 ­43140,3 ­16300
Year 4: 3450,4 ­30790,4 ­9850
Year 5: 8200,5 ­18440,5 ­2060
Year 6: 12950,6 ­6090,6 8390
Year 7: 17700,7 6260,7 22290
Year 8: 22450,8 18610,8 36540
Year 9: 27200,9 30960,9 51740
Year 10: 31950,10 43310,10 66940
Improvement Strategy #1:
The most applicable of recommended changes, the creation of a regular collection
service would go a long way towards improving the Gustie ware program. A large contributing
factor for unaccounted/lost Gustie ware has been full bins, as students have historically
abandoned or even disposed of their containers upon seeing their local collection bins full.
Though this concern undoubtedly falls upon the responsibility of students, addressing this issue
immediately by creating a collection service would have a tremendously positive impact on the
Gustie ware organization. Collected on a regular basis, a collection service could more than
easily reduce the replacement costs of Gustie ware by 20%.
Practical application of this improvement strategy would rely upon the Dining Services
for financial support. Working an estimated five hours a day, for five days a week, at the
minimum wage, total expenses to hire a collection staff would range from between
$10,800­12,000 dollars a year(See graph for calculations). Maintaining the lowest operating
costs of the three strategies, creating a collection staff would would also have the quickest
return on investment, and by the fourth year, would be close
Working jointly to log a total of 5­7 hours work per day, employees would make stops at
the set locations to collect dishware from bins and haul the contents into to their vehicles.These
containers would then promptly be delivered to the dish room the same day, in order to
eliminate any possibility of rotting or insect infestation. After being cleaned, the Gustie ware
would be sorted and stacked by Dining Service staff, and become once again available for
reuse by students.
Out of the three proposed solutions, this program would involve the least risk due to it’s
heavy reliance on variable costs. Workers could have the capability to adjust their collection
schedules based off the amount of Gustie ware in bins, effectively tailoring the costs of the
program with it’s benefits. With few fixed costs and stimulating the return of to­go containers, the
establishment of a Gustie ware collection service would be a positive step towards improving
the existing program.

19. 19
Besides any monetary benefits derived, the establishment of a collection service would
also aid the Gustie ware program psychologically, improving the image of the program amongst
the student body. Consistent and careful maintenance of collection bins would reflect the idea
that Dining Services took their commitment to the success of the Gustie ware program seriously.
This in turn, could alter the student’s current behavior of apathy and disregard toward the
program. Upon realizing the improved conditions, and observing the renewed efforts by the
Dining Service to keep the program running, students might make more of an effort on their
behalf to dispose of their containers properly.
Improvement Strategy #2:
The Ozzi system, a reusable take out container and return structure system, is an
investment that has been said to pay for itself because of its easy to use and economic system.
The system is intended to reduce waste and save dining service facilities the expenses of
affording disposable take­out containers such as cardboard, Styrofoam, etc. The system offers
a complete hand out and intake of their own containers that are said to be both durable and
functional. The system is very new and not many reviews have been written about it however
the articles that have been published have said nothing but great things for the system and only
great things to follow the progression of this machine. In other words not much has been
advertised about the cons of this machine rather than the pros.
The Ozzi Container machine works like a vending machine that vends the Ozzi
containers. A student or customer that wishes to take a meal to­go, at their dining facility, have
but to insert five dollars into the machine to receive a container. The return is just as simple.
When the student or customer wishes to return the container the machine offers a slot, which
the container is placed, scanned and taken into the machine where staff will be able to access
them later to be washed. When the container is accepted by the machine a token or a five dollar
credit is given to the student or customer’s account which can be used to purchase another
clean container or to be cashed out if the student or customer no longer wishes to have a
container.
As stated above the containers include a bar code which helps keep track of the
containers and their organization to make sure there are none being lost in the transactions.
The bar codes also track them so that they can be recycled after 200 uses. The system offers
two ways of payment/repayment for the dinners using the machine and the containers. One
way, as stated, would be to use tokens for a returned container to the machine. Another option
would be put credit on a student account via an account card that can be issued by the facility.
The system comes in four versions: Ozzi 480; Ozzi 683; Ozzi 687; and Ozzi 852.
The variances in machines depends the capacity for different sized containers. All systems are
able to hold 125+ reusable containers, a barcode scanner, touch screen display, 200+ token
capacity for dispensing and an Ethernet cable. Again the differences that vary from machine to
machine is the ability to take more than one kind of reusable container such as the basic three
compartment container, a bowl container, a bucket container, or single and double compartment
containers.
The containers that have been mentioned are called preserve 2 Go. Newly made,
these products are new to the market and were shippable as of June 2014. The containers are
compatible with the Ozzi system and can be customizable in terms of a logo. The containers are
made in the USA from 100% recycled plastic, BPA free and are microwavable. The containers

20. 20
were designed for convenience in use and for washing. The approval from the NSF is in
process. Designed for durability (able to use for 300 uses before being recycled) and minimal
leaks and, as stated before, customizable with corporate and university logos. The system is
also able to sell just the labels that can be scanned. This allows the system adaptable to more
than just a single brand of container.
There is also the possibility of a bar code sticker. The bar code sticker would be
implemented in the case that a facility would like to use a container outside the Preserve 2 Go
selection. For example a different brand or line of container could be used in the system by
simply placing the bar code sticker on the desired container. The sticker makes any container
compatible with the Ozzi system. Therefore a facility that does not agree with the Preserve 2 Go
or simply already has purchased their own line or brand of reusable containers are able to buy
the sticker at fifty cents a piece as opposed to the five for each container.
When it comes to purchasing and maintaining the system, the cost, shipping and
installation will be around $15,000. The company suggests starting with the token system, which
will cost about $200 for 1000 tokens. Another way that the system is offered is by rent which will
cost about $399 a year (not including shipping).
The system comes with an IPA jack, which is where the maintenance costs will come
from. The IPA cord will allow the system to complete updates which will cost $109 a month. The
updates will include checks on overall system to make sure it is running properly and also to
place further variations and improvements that the company has made.
Power use of the system is efficient. The Ozzi machine uses 5amps of power and has
been programed to sleep (use less power in a restful state) when it has not been used after a
period of time. The Period of time can be customized along with many of the other features of
this machine.
The system has particularity good marks from ​UC Merced, one of the first
colleges to implement the system on their campus. The students enjoy the containers and the
convenience they offer. The college faculty noted the smooth operation of the dispensing of the
containers and the enthusiasm that the students take into using the system.
“This is a great system both environmentally and financially. We actually save
money using this system as opposed to continuing with the Styrofoam or disposable boxes, and
it is better for the environment,” said David Friend, director of Dining Services. “It’s a convenient
and helpful way to phase out our disposables and keep costs low for students.”
Overall the expense of the machine seems reasonable when compared to the
cost of resupplying one­time disposable containers and is of course better on our planet. The
only question of the system not working out and being worth the money would be the response
of the customers. However the Ozzi Company seems to take up the slack on making this
system the most convenient.
Improvement Strategy #3:
The most extensive and complex of recommendations, Improvement Strategy #3 would
concentrate on fulfilling the long term goals of the Gustie ware program. Specifically, this
recommendation would concentrate on 1) improving the attitude of students toward the
program, as well as 2) increasing student participation, in the Gustie ware program. In order to
accomplish this, key foundations of the existing program, such as the “honor system” would be
reverted to a “pay” system, in which students would have to pay an enrollment fee to use Gustie
ware. Additionally, strong emphasis would be placed on renewed marketing of the program,
highlighting the cost effectiveness of RTC’s from a student perspective.

21. 21
The cost of to implement this particular strategy would range widely and depend on a
number of significant factors. In my calculations, the salary of the Dining Service employee was
set to eleven dollars, and the return stand was open ten hours a day, for seven days a week.
However, these prerequisites could easily be changed based on the preferences of
management, which in turn could dramatically alter the estimated operating costs and return on
investment. In accordance with this idea, return on investment was set at a yearly exponential
increase of ​7% per year,​ however, depending on the rapidity by which students began to adopt
I.S. #3, the speed by which the program would become profitable would also vary. In
conclusion,
vital statistics regarding this program would carry a large a measure of deviation, and it would
be difficult to estimate any quantitative results.
As mentioned previously, the first step of this recommendation process would be to
create a “pay” program for the use of Gustie ware. At the beginning of every semester, students
could pay a flat fee to become a member of the Gustie ware program, and would receive two
to­go containers to start with. Student behavior would remain unchanged at this point, and
students would serve themselves and be charged in an identical manner. However, the process
would change once both to­go containers had been used. Instead of dumping their containers in
collection bins, or returning them to the dining room as before, students would instead return
back to the cafeteria and proceed to the side exit, between the pizza parlor and the Rotisserie. It
is in this corridor that a staff member would operate the exchange stand. Here, students could
return their used containers for clean ones, or opt to receive a token for every container
returned. Serving as a more transportable medium of exchange, tokens would be useful for
individuals who wanted to return their dirty containers, but did not feel like getting food to go at
that moment in time.
Though the adjustment from a free resource to a “paid­for­use system” might aggravate
some students, it is a necessary evil considering the circumstances of the program. Free use of
Gustie ware has resulted in serious abuse and neglect of the program, and warnings about the
issue have gone unheeded. As a consequence, each student’s use of Gustie ware will become
recorded and tracked. Disappointing, this seems to be one of the few options left to ensure
accountability for the majority of student populace.
Promoting increased participation:
Promoting the use of Gustie ware to increase the number of student participants would
also form an integral part of this improvement strategy. The Gustie ware program could be
marketed in a number of mediums, using emails, blog posts, and even fliers to remind students
about the changes in the program operations. More importantly, such marketing efforts would
emphasize the cost effectiveness of the program, providing explicit numerical details into how
superior the program was over disposables. For example, within 10 times of use, a 5.00
enrollment fee into Gustie ware would become more cost effective than using disposable carry
outs, which cost .50 per use. In order to provide further incentives, the cost of disposables could
likewise be raised, exaggerating the cost effectiveness of Gustie ware even further.
Needs:
Organizationally, the program would require the foundation of a new subroutine on one
Dining Service cash register. The primary role of the subroutine would be to verify an individual
was enrolled in the program every time they returned a token or dirty container. Doing so would
reduce theft, as individuals would not be able to sell or store to­go containers without first paying

22. 22
admission into becoming a member. Dining staff members would also have to be familiarized
with how to operate the exchange stand, and specific rules would need to be established in
order to maintain speed and efficiency.

23. 23
Bibliography:
● http://www.safetyhumanfactors.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/12/58Kalsher_Rodocker_R
acicot_Wog1993.pdf
● http://dining.ucmerced.edu/ozzi­initiative­new/how­use­ozzi
● http://www.saintpetermn.gov/single­sort­residential­recycling
● ​https://kitchencabinet.blog.gustavus.edu/2009/06/16/gustieware­update/
● http://orgs.gustavus.edu/greens/Minutes022510.htm
● ​http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2998261/
● https://gustavus.edu/physicalplant/PPData/SustainabilityPlanning.php
● https://gustavus.edu/physicalplant/waste_and_recycling.php
● ​http://www.agreenozzi.com/
● http://www.all­recycling­facts.com/history­of­recycling.html
● http://dining.umd.edu/whats­new/1088
● https://news.blog.gustavus.edu/2014/04/24/beck­academic­hall­achieves­leed­platinum­
certification/
● http://www.augsburg.edu/green/reuse­and­recycling/
● http://www.bethel.edu/offices/green­council/recycling
● http://apps.carleton.edu/campus/facilities/sustainability/
● ​http://www.eckerd.edu/green/waste/ecoclamshell.php
● https://www.concordiacollege.edu/directories/offices­services/facilities­management/serv
ices/recycling/
● http://www.stthomas.edu/recycle/reports/
● http://wp.stolaf.edu/sustainability/composting/
● ​http://www.macalester.edu/sustainability/projects/recycling/
● http://www.buschsystems.com/
● ​http://www.csbsju.edu/sju­sustainability/what­were­doing/recycling
● http://www.hamline.edu/education/cgee/bigfoot.html

24. 24

25. 25