Hardware

Are robots right for restaurants?

Experts share insights on whether robots are right for restaurants.

Image via iStock.com

November 10, 2020 by S.A. Whitehead — Food Editor, Net World Media Group

Any QSR operator who ever assumed humans aren't more than a little edgy about robots in restaurants should scan through the recently completed research, "How to Build a Better Robot for Quick-service Restaurants." In the largely qualitative study, it is very clear that carbon-based life forms like those reading this article, actually have a lot of emotion around what emotion-free cooking and serving robots look and sound like, as well as how they do their jobs, operate hygienically and a host of other concerns.

To give you an idea what's on our minds about restaurant robots, just look at some of the comments the university professors conducting the research heard from study participants:

They might run somebody over.
They might be dangerous with knives.
They might get gummed up with oil.
They shouldn't be "human-looking."
At least they "they won't spit in the food."

The last sentiment on that list, by the way, is for real and was mentioned by study participants as a benefit of robots over human restaurant staff, according to Ball State University Miller College of Business Associate Professor Dina Marie Zemke. She and several faculty members from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas undertook the focus group-centered robotic-related research.

The group specifically focused their research on QSRs' use of robots to prep, cook, serve and perform other restaurant functions. Zemke said the researchers expected some level of consumer consternation around the topic, but they actually got a lot more.

Consumers, like those participating in the study, ultimately felt that robotically powered QSRs are more or less guaranteed to become commonplace, given concerns around costs and even adequate staffing in an industry where most frontline staff typically make at or around minimum wage.

Flippy ROAR. (Photo: Miso Robotics/file)

In fact, if you've been reading this website for long, you know that at QSRs like White Castle, the affably named robot, Flippy, is now being tested in the kitchens of a number of Midwest stores (see today's separate story on some results of those tests here) and the company will extend that pilot to up to 10 more storesnext year.

Likewise, you've also read about the pizza-assembly line on sister site, Pizza Marketplace, and even the automated pizza startup, Piestro, that joined with robotics provider, to offer consumers a contactless pizza delivery experience.

Additionally, even this site's readers — mostly restaurant industry leaders and company owners — say they are in full-forward mode with the idea of using this form of tech in their restaurants. For instance, in an October reader poll around this subject, more than 38% of respondents said they would or are strongly considering cooking robots in their restaurants.

That's a lot of restaurant leaders with robots on the brain. That's why we wanted to learn more about the study's findings, published in August this year in the "Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research." So we bounced a few questions off of Zemke, as well as sharing some of the results with White Castle Vice President Jamie Richardson, to see what his impressions of some of the more salient research results were. We began with a question for both Zemke and Richardson around findings related to what restaurant robots should look like.

Q: Around the category of a restaurant robot's appearance, many respondents were averse to robots that look like humans in any way, rather participants thought restaurant robots should "look like the function" they perform? What does that mean exactly?
ZEMKE:Rather than making the robot look like a humanoid, the robot could look like a dish machine (for example, with a box shape) and basically feed itself the items that needed to be cleaned. Other participants agreed with this vision and overall agreed that the appearance should somehow illustrate the function performed.

Q: Since White Castle is currently evaluating largely back-of-house use of Flippy Robot-on-a-rail, what kind of things were taken into account with regard to the way the robot looks, even though it is being used in the kitchen?
RICHARDSON: Form follows function, but we also are seeing the investment in Flippy as similar to adding a new team member. Flippy wears a "sleeve," featuring the White Castle logo and the fun message, "Flippy, Team Member #1."

Of course, our focus on cleanliness is also something we want reflected with everything a customer sees back of house — so those have all been considerations. Overall, we want team members and customers to know we believe technology is empowering and "embraceable" — and should never be fearful.

High concern around hygiene

Q: So since you mentioned hygiene around restaurant robots, it's certainly a true statement that many of the study participants were extremely concerned about how restaurants would keep robots clean and prevent robots from causing an hygienic problems around food. In fact, one participant even relayed a kind of "sky-is-falling" scenario where they feared robotic lubrication oil might drip into food being prepared. Is that an outgrowth of hygiene concerns around the pandemic or just an ongoing concern of diners around the cleanliness of restaurant kitchens?
ZEMKE:This was definitely not prompted by COVID, as the focus groups were held prior to COVID's emergence. It appears to be an ongoing concern about cleanliness.

Many of our participants were currently working or had previous work experience in restaurants, so have an enhanced practical knowledge of the importance of cleanliness. In addition, I think that the focus on QSRs brought back memories of the vast Internet collection of videos of employees misbehaving in the back-of-house areas in restaurants, along with the rumor that employees might spit in your food.

Q: At White Castle before the Flippy robot tests began what type of consideration was devoted to this whole topic of robots and hygiene?
RICHARDSON:Cleanliness and safety are cornerstones of everything we do in our White Castle restaurants. As a family-owned business for 99 years now, it's not just a box to check, it's central to how we design all aspects of our operation.

Flippy is no exception. We've worked with Miso Robotics for many months to look at every aspect of real-world application to ensure safety and cleanliness are central to every aspect of the experience. We feel we've met the mark, but of course, we'll continue to evaluate, learn and apply new insights every step of the way.

'Robot-speak' leaves lots to desire

Q: A major other area of robotic restaurant function the study identified revolved around how these machines would or even if they communicate with customers, so what types of feelings do QSR customers have around that topic?
ZEMKE:(Participants') order-taking experiences were often based (on) telephone call-ins, where an automated system "spoke" with the customer. This is where the voice recognition system deficiencies showed up.

But if voice recognition can be improved, then there is a world of opportunity – literally, a world – if a robot can be programmed to respond to multiple, or all, languages. The most common automated order-taking technology in QSRs is (via) kiosks and touchpads, which aren't robotic.

Photo: iStock

The key takeaway (from the study's findings) … is wait until the voice recognition technology is perfected, including background noise cancelling. I think this will be particularly important in drive-thru operations, since many restaurant patrons may be simultaneously ordering food and speaking on their phones, have the radio on, have other passengers in the car speaking, etc. I suspect that the equipment is also vulnerable to outdoor weather conditions, so ensuring that the microphone is robust will be important to improve voice recognition.

Q: Then, the study also uncovered the very real and lingering customer expectation for a "human touch" in restaurant transactions. In fact, even among back-of-house staff, participants who had worked in restaurants worried that aspect with a robot on the team, but those concerns paled in comparison to front-of-house issues around extending the human tough robotically, didn't it?
ZEMKE:While the back-of-house concerns were numerous and legitimate, I think most of the focus group participants who have worked in the industry realize that after a period of adjustment, most employees would learn to coexist with the robotics.

However, the front-of-house applications would create an environment where the robot would encounter new people every day. Some customers would re-patronize often enough that they would get used to interfacing with the robots. But some customers would not adjust.

The major concerns revolved around communications, particularly in terms of voice recognition systems and a robot's inability to interpret subtle and complex human emotions. The human employees will probably need to run interference on escalations more often than anyone expects until robot technology can recognize sarcasm, subtle facial and body movements, and other non-verbal communication.

Q: The research revealed a lot of consumer concern around safety in restaurants that use any form of robotic. So related to these concerns, what do you think QSRs using this tech in their stores, like White Castle, should be communicating to address those concerns?
ZEMKE:Lessons learned from market research tell us that it's important not to bring negative thoughts into the customer's mind, with a few exceptions when fear-based marketing is effective. So it's probably not a good idea to emphasize the negative.

However, if an operator deployed robotics, it might be a good idea to emphasize the positive, such as a message like "Our robots will bring you great service and high-quality food products."

Don't emphasize the food sanitation overtly, although it may be appropriate to provide information about food sanitation and robotics on the company's website for those customers who like to do a deep dive into this type of information.

On the flip side … non-robotic operators could use a competitor's robot deployment as a marketing message that emphasizes the benefits of human workers.

Research takeaways for restaurateurs

Q: If you were a restaurant operator, what would be your primary takeaways from this research?
ZEMKE: I think that QSR customers recognize that robotics are coming whether the customer is ready or not. If the robots are primarily in the back-of-house areas, the customer will have little, if any, direct contact and will not need to alter their behavior. Front-of-house robots may take some getting used to.

Front-of-house (robotics), personally, I would not be an early adopter of the technology. I'd wait and see how other close competitors managed it, and then learn from their experiences to find the right option for my business. I would definitely wait for voice recognition technology to be perfected and also wait to see if dining area robots create problems that lead to litigation.

Back-of-house (robotic use), along with the obvious cost control questions, operators should consider ensuring that the human workers will be well-versed in not only how to manage/maintain the robots, but also what the company's product and service are. Since the "human touch" was important … the QSR employee of the future will need to be a double-threat — both technologist and hospitality expert.

About S.A. Whitehead

Pizza Marketplace and QSRweb editor Shelly Whitehead is a former newspaper and TV reporter with an affinity for telling stories about the people and innovative thinking behind great brands.