A Constructive Call to Action for Presidents, CFOs, and Trustees
Fall 2026 will be a defining moment for higher education.
Not because of a single event, but because it will quietly reveal which institutions took proactive steps to strengthen the student experience and which relied on hope, habit, or incrementalism. The results will show up in retention data, housing occupancy, meal plan participation, student satisfaction scores, and ultimately, financial performance.
After fifty-four years working in campus dining strategy, design, and food service operations, I have learned one thing with absolute certainty.
Institutions that treat dining as a strategic asset outperform those that treat it as a managed expense.
This is not a philosophical statement. It is an operational one.
Dining is one of the few levers institutions fully control that directly influences student connection, belonging, fall-to-fall student retention, persistence, and perceived value. It is also one of the fastest areas where meaningful improvements can often be made without capital investment.
Yet many campuses continue to overlook this opportunity.
The Strategic Role of Dining Is Still Underestimated
For most students, dining is among their first and most frequent shared experiences on campus. It is where friendships begin, where informal mentoring happens, where commuter students decide whether to stay longer, and where residential students decide whether campus feels like home.
When dining works well socially, students stay engaged.
When students stay engaged, retention improves.
When retention improves, financial stability follows.
Despite this, dining is still often categorized as a support function rather than a strategic enrollment driver. That classification alone limits what is possible.
Institutions that see dining through the lens of SOCIAL ARCHITECTURE™ and Abundance Thinking understand that food is the medium, not the outcome. The outcome is connection, belonging, emotional well-being, and overall student success.
The Common Misconception About Resources
A frequent concern we hear from campus leaders, sometimes reinforced by food service contractors, is that meaningful change in dining requires new funding or major capital investment. In practice, that is rarely the case.
Across hundreds of engagements, we have yet to encounter a dining program that could not be materially improved using existing resources.
The issue is not funding.
The issue is program alignment that meets students where they are, combined with accountability and leverage with your food service contractor.
Most of the value already exists within current contracts, current staffing models, and current infrastructure. It is simply not being fully realized by your institution.
Where Many Campuses Continue to Struggle
Several recurring patterns continue to limit performance.
Many institutions allow food service operators to shape the program definition, submit proposals, and then measure their own success. While well-intentioned, this structure limits independent oversight and often prioritizes operator efficiency over student experience.
Other campuses accept dining hours, menus, and service models that do not align with actual student behavior. When students encounter closed doors, limited options, or inconsistent execution, they disengage and quickly seek alternate off-campus options.
In some cases, complexity is mistaken for variety. Large menus and numerous concepts look impressive on paper but are difficult to execute consistently. Students value predictability, consistency, and quality more than volume.
None of these challenges is insurmountable. In fact, they are often the lowest-hanging fruit.
Improvements That Can Be Implemented Before Fall 2026 Without Capital
There are several changes institutions can implement immediately that improve outcomes without increasing costs.
- Align Operating Hours With Student Life:
Students eat when they study, socialize, and decompress. Adjusting hours to match real behavior, rather than legacy schedules, increases utilization and satisfaction. This often requires reallocating labor rather than adding it. - Simplify Menus to Improve Execution:
Reducing menu complexity improves speed, consistency, and food quality while lowering waste. Students respond positively when they know what to expect and can trust the experience. - Prioritize Staff Training and Customer Service:
Dining staff are the face of the institution. Training that emphasizes hospitality, engagement, professionalism, and accountability improves the experience without changing staffing levels. - Design for Social Engagement:
Music, lighting, seating layouts, programming, and adequate power outlets and charging stations influence whether students show up at all and, when they do, how long they stay and whether they return. Dining commons should foster social interaction, not just customer throughput. - Reevaluate Meal Plan Value Propositions:
High prices paired with low perceived value drive dissatisfaction and opt-outs. Structuring plans around access, flexibility, and frequency increases participation and stabilizes revenue.
These are not theoretical concepts. They are proven operational adjustments. Fix your program, and in many cases, issues regarding the price of a mandatory meal plan become moot.
Why Traditional Operator Selection Often Falls Short
Many food service operator selection processes focus heavily on proposals and program ambiguity rather than outcomes. The program ambiguity becomes a result of being flooded with all of the exciting programs, menus, culinary excellence, concepts an operator can do, with little or no specificity of exactly what form the program will take and cost in the bidding process, and eventually into the new contract.
While proposals are useful, they are not predictors of performance.
A more effective approach begins with an independent strategic plan that clearly defines institutional priorities, performance metrics, and specific program criteria. Only then should operators be invited to compete.
This shift ensures the institution remains in control of the strategy, rather than adapting to what is being sold.
A Different Model of Accountability
For many years, our firm has offered a No Quit No Fee Guarantee for Food Service Operator Selection services.
Under this model, institutions do not pay a professional fee unless we expand their program, keep meal plan pricing to students flat, and increase their bottom-line remuneration beyond current contract levels.
There is no fixed fee.
There is no financial risk to the institution.
Our compensation is tied entirely to performance.
We do this because we understand where value exists within dining contracts and how to unlock it without raising meal plan prices or compromising quality.
This approach reflects Abundance Thinking. Create value first, then share in the upside.
Why Fall 2026 Matters
Demographic trends are challenging.
Tuition discounting has limits.
Marketing alone cannot compensate for lived experience.
Dining remains one of the few areas where institutions can create visible, measurable improvement within a short timeframe.
Choosing not to act is still a decision.
Choosing to delay is still a decision.
Fall 2026 will reflect those choices clearly.
A Complimentary Second Opinion
For institutions confident in their current dining strategy, an independent second opinion provides validation.
For those who are not, it provides clarity.
We offer a complimentary review of dining contracts and strategy, independent of any operator influence. There is no obligation and no pressure, just insight.
Closing Thought
Over the course of my career, I have seen institutions act early and thrive. I have also seen institutions wait and struggle to recover.
Dining is not a peripheral issue. It is a powerful opportunity to establish and strengthen student connections, institutional culture, and long-term financial performance.
The question is not whether dining matters.
The question is whether you will fully leverage it before Fall 2026.
The window remains open.
