UX RESEARCH | ILLUSTRATIVE ENGAGEMENT
Does an allergen change remain complete as approval moves through the kitchen?
Testing a substitution approval tool across multi role commercial kitchen teams in Dublin, Ireland.
CLIENT SITUATION
A food service operator was preparing a tool for reviewing an ingredient substitution before it reached production and customer communication.
DECISION REQUIRED
Determine whether the approval flow preserved the information and stop conditions required by each role.
Why the interaction mattered
The substitution could pass through procurement, an operations manager, a chef and a service lead. Each person might approve a different part of the change while assuming another role had checked the missing evidence. The client needed to see the complete relay, not four isolated screen tests.
Hypothetical engagement frame
5 TEAMS
Twenty participants across four approval roles
DUBLIN
City centre, hotel and contract catering settings
1 CHANGE RELAY
Same substitution passed through every role
5 WEEKS
Recruitment, simulation, analysis and retest
Research decision
PRESERVE
Which facts survive every handoff?
STOP
When does missing evidence block approval?
ACT
Can the kitchen and service team identify the correct next action?
Note: The venue types, participants, findings and recommendations are hypothetical and do not represent a completed client project.
PARTICIPANT AND OUTREACH DESIGN
Recruit intact approval teams
The study uses teams whose roles normally interact. This makes it possible to observe how information changes as responsibility moves.
Five four role teams
PROCUREMENT
Receives supplier substitution and supporting evidence
OPERATIONS MANAGER
Reviews site impact, approval and rollout condition
CHEF OR KITCHEN LEAD
Connects the change to recipe, preparation and service
SERVICE LEAD
Applies customer facing information and escalation
Venue and shift parameters
PARAMETER | WHY IT IS INCLUDED | SCREENING EVIDENCE |
|---|---|---|
VENUE MODEL | Approval ownership differs across restaurant, hotel and contract catering operations | Role and authority in a recent substitution |
SHIFT HANDOFF | Change may move from office hours to service preparation | Experience receiving a change from another shift |
MENU COMPLEXITY | One ingredient can affect several dishes or service points | Responsibility for recipe or menu update |
TOOL ACCESS | Roles may use desktop, tablet or shared kitchen device | Actual device and login arrangement |
Outreach route
SOURCE
Approved Dublin venue groups and catering partners
FORM TEAM
Recruit linked roles from the same operating model
SCHEDULE
Run sessions around preparation and service windows
PERMISSION
Use fictitious ingredients, menus and supplier records
Why independent research adds value
Internal reviews can become a test of whether employees know the procedure. Independent facilitation keeps attention on what the tool communicates and allows participants to reveal workarounds without turning the session into performance assessment.
RESEARCH METHOD
Information Loss Approval Relay
Each role receives only the information that would normally appear on its screen, completes its decision and passes the record forward.
Controlled substitution scenario
SCENARIO BACKGROUND
A supplier proposes a replacement ingredient before the next delivery. Identity and menu impact are present, but one supporting evidence field is incomplete. The team must decide whether to stop, request information, approve with a condition or release the change.
Relay design
1. PROCUREMENT
Reviews supplier record and starts the change
2. OPERATIONS
Checks site impact and approval condition
3. KITCHEN
Connects the ingredient to preparation and menu
4. SERVICE
Uses the approved record for customer communication
HIDDEN TEST
One field is incomplete at the start
HANDOFF
Each role adds, removes or rephrases information
STOP POINT
The tool may block, warn or allow continuation
REPLAY
The team sees where the record changed
What is observed at each handoff
EVIDENCE | OBSERVED BEHAVIOUR | CONSEQUENCE |
|---|---|---|
INFORMATION RETAINED | Which facts remain visible after each role acts | Complete or degraded record |
ASSUMPTION | What the next role believes has already been checked | Duplicated or omitted verification |
STOP RESPONSE | Whether missing evidence blocks, warns or is ignored | Controlled or uncontrolled release |
RECOVERY | How the role requests, corrects and confirms information | Clear or ambiguous ownership |
QUESTION DESIGN
Questions are asked at the handoff point
The moderator captures the participant's decision before revealing what the previous or next role saw.
Questions across the relay
What did you believe the previous role had already verified when this record reached you?
Reconstructs assumptions carried into the decision.
Which information did you need before you could take your own action?
Identifies the role's evidence threshold.
The supporting field is incomplete. What did the interface tell you to do next?
Tests whether the stop or recovery cue is actionable.
What did you add or change before passing the record forward, and why?
Shows how the information evolves at the handoff.
What did approval mean at your stage of the relay?
Checks whether approval has one meaning or several role specific meanings.
If the next role acted only on this screen, what might they misunderstand?
Tests anticipation of downstream use.
Team replay questions
Q07
At which handoff did the record stop representing the original supplier change?
Locates the point of information loss.
Q08
Which role should own the unresolved field, and what should every other role see while it remains open?
Defines ownership and shared status.
ILLUSTRATIVE FINDINGS
How information changed across five teams
The heatmap shows the number of hypothetical teams in which each information element remained visible and correctly understood at every stage.
Information survival by role
INFORMATION ELEMENT | PROCUREMENT | OPERATIONS | KITCHEN | SERVICE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Ingredient identity | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 | 5/5 |
Affected menu items | 5/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 3/5 |
Allergen status | 5/5 | 5/5 | 4/5 | 4/5 |
Supplier evidence | 5/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 |
Customer message | 3/5 | 3/5 | 2/5 | 1/5 |
Note: Counts are hypothetical. A lower value indicates that the information was missing, changed or not understood in one or more team relays.
Decision gate pattern
EVIDENCE COMPLETE
Continue to role approval
EVIDENCE MISSING
Block release and assign owner
SITE IMPACT OPEN
Keep change conditional
RECORD COMPLETE
Release one shared final state
Illustrative decision
REDESIGN THE APPROVAL STATE
Replace one general approval label with role complete, evidence pending, site approved and released states. Keep missing supplier evidence visible and owned throughout the relay.
DECISION AND DELIVERY
What the client receives
The output shows where information is lost, where the workflow should stop and how responsibility should remain visible.
Approval Relay Trace
Role by role record showing additions, losses and changed meaning
Stop Condition Register
Missing evidence and the interface response required at each stage
Role State Dictionary
Shared definitions for complete, pending, approved and released
Team Retest Script
One repeated substitution scenario for verifying the revised relay
Delivery sequence
WEEK 1
Scope and team screening
WEEK 2
Scenario and role setup
WEEK 3
Five approval relays
WEEK 4
Information loss analysis
WEEK 5
Design review and retest
Timing is indicative and depends on venue response, shift schedules, team availability, operating permissions, prototype readiness and access across Dublin.
FAQ
Does this research validate allergen safety or legal compliance?
No. It evaluates how users interact with the approval tool. It does not replace food safety, scientific, supplier, legal, regulatory or operating procedure assessment.
Contact Us
Discuss your UX research question
Tell us the roles, critical approval task, interface, venue conditions, markets and decision you need to make. August Research will design the team outreach, relay simulation and decision outputs around the interaction that matters.
