Employees Drinking Water Provision Justification Report

Executive Summary
This researched justification report analyses the viability of implementation of provision of drinking water services and facilities in our highly esteemed company (PAG Holdings Limited). It examines the possible consideration of provision of bottled drinking water, drinking water fountains and installation of water dispensers. The method of analysis will include but not limited to making inquiries from companies providing bottled drinking water, water dispensers’ installation and drinking water fountains installation as well as research conducted over the internet to determine the drinking water safety standards, minerals available in drinking water and their effects on different employees based on their dietary restrictions.

The results of research shows that the three examined options have their pros and cons independently with a range of delivery options, installation options, costs (installation, procurement, maintenance), employee acceptability and satisfaction ratings, safety and hygiene and convenience. However the report makes the finding that although the three alternatives have almost equal strengths the drinking water fountain is of preference by meeting the set criteria based on safety and hygiene, installation and maintenance costs, employees’ ratings and convenience. The recommendation of choosing alternative B, drinking water fountain installation has been made for provision of employees’ drinking water for PAG Holdings Limited. Employees Drinking Water Provision

Employees of PAG Holdings Limited have been suffering from thirst in silence. There is no supply of clean, safe and mineral containing water in the offices. The employees deserve to be provided with water to energize their bodies and avert dehydration cases (Wanjek, 2005). This will be very motivating to the employees and will be reflected in the quality of work delivered. The employees waste a lot of time in moving to acquire water for themselves from the canteen or sale outlets. Other employees have gone a step further in carrying water from home, which inconveniences them. I have had a case of one of the employees whose iPhone got spoilt after the water she was carrying in her handbag opened up spoiling everything in the bag including some office work papers.

This researched justification report makes a representation of the importance of providing drinking water to the employees. It also presents the most suitable means of providing water to the offices. The scope of the problem presented involves three means and choices of providing safe drinking water. The three are evaluated using the utilization of five criteria to make a decision, which is the best and unique for PAG Holdings Limited. The report makes no consideration of other available choices but it is a fact that they exist such as clean tap water. However, it focuses on the three preferable choices as suggested by the employees through a questionnaire. Research on the ground and over the Internet was carried out as well as employees’ personal views and this assisted in coming up with a final recommendation provided here to the employer (Smith, 2007).

Problem Statement
The 350 employees of PAG need to be provided with clean, safe and tasty drinking water at the workplace. PAG has also been bombarded with proposals by many drinking water and equipment provision companies. The employees are in arms and would like to get clean drinking water as soon as possible before, as they claim, succumb to thirst. The question is what to be considered by the company in making its choice of the most suitable means of drinking water provision with a tight budget, environmental sustainability, timing, safety and hygiene, installation and maintenance costs, and many other factors that come hand in hand (Wiggins, 2010). The problem needs to be solved and this will lead to the improvement of the performance of the employees. How is the company going to make a choice on this fundamental case?

Alternatives Overview
The following are the three proposed alternatives that are expected to solve the problem: Alternative A – Bottled drinking water: This will involve the supply of bottled water to PAG by a water bottling companies such as Crystal Water Company. The sizes of the bottles will generally be around 500 Ml for convenience of use for each employee to avert the need to share water and wastages. The advantages of this alternative are that the safety and hygiene of the water is high as chances of contamination are almost null provided the water is procured from a certified high standards company. This cons of this option are environmental pollution through the disposal of the water bottles, which are usually plastic, there will be additional costs in the distribution of water to the employees and the garbage collection costs.

Alternative B- Drinking water fountains installation: This will involve the procurement and installation of drinking water fountains in strategic points in the offices. The points should be accessible to every employee and close to their working point to minimize the time wasted in accessing water. The water fountains will have one or several sources of clean, safe and mineral containing which should be sealed and inspected regularly. The refilling should be done after a suitable period of time. This should be done by a certified water supply company (Wiggins, 2010). The design of the fountain should be such as to minimize to almost null water contamination during direct mouth drinking by the employees. The advantages of water fountains include but not limited to: environmental sustainability (no bottles or cups needed to take water, the employee will just be drinking directly from the water fountain at a safe distance from the opening to minimize the chances of contamination), there will be no additional costs in terms of provision of cups, glasses or any other utensils.

Alternative C – Water Dispensers installation: This choice would involve the buying and placement of water dispensers and also supply of big bottles (about 20 liters each) bottled water from water bottling companies. The dispensers will also be placed in strategic positions for accessibility. The advantages of water dispensers will be the choice to have a warm or hot water tap, minimal contamination and easiness of use (Gleick, 2010). The disadvantages are the costs of supplying the employees with cups or glasses, maintenance and managing the change of the water containers and environmental pollution.

Criteria
The judging of the alternatives by PAG will be based on the following criteria: Costs – The cost of acquiring, maintenance and disposal. PAG has a tight budget and would like a cost economical means of providing water. Health, Safety and Hygiene – The drinking water should be clean, safe and containing the necessary minerals. It should observe hygiene with minimal to null contamination. Timing – The project should be implemented in the shortest time possible and the water should be accessible at minimal time wastage to give more time for working. Desirability – Researcher noted that most employees need odor free, non-salty, and bacteria and germs free water. Practicability – The choice should be easy and economical to install and use.

Research Method
The research methods included but not limited to making inquiries from companies providing bottled drinking water, water dispensers’ installation and drinking water fountains installation. A study will be conducted over the Internet to determine the drinking water safety standards, minerals available in drinking water and their effects on different employees based on their dietary restrictions (Gleick, 2010).

A study will also be conducted among the employees to determine their preferences and suggestions. Inquiries from companies provide real time information with the current prices and costs. Companies already using the alternatives were very resourceful. Internet sources provide information on drinking water provision standards. The alternatives were evaluated and their advantages and disadvantages compared as well as the criteria. The findings and analysis were of assistance in coming up with a recommendation. Evaluation of Alternatives

Cost

Alternative A – Bottled drinking water: The price of a 500Ml bottle of water is approximately 0.3 dollars. One serving of 350 employees will cost the PAG holdings ltd 105 dollars. The employees will need at least 4 servings, which will make the sum to be 420 dollars per day. Use of bottled water will result to additional cost in the disposal of the plastic containers. This means PAG will have to pay an extra 50 dollars per day to the garbage collectors not forgetting where the garbage ends up (Gleick, 2010).

Alternative B- Drinking water fountains installation: PAG will install 10 drinking water fountains for its employees. Each fountain will serve 35 people. To install one fountain will cost PAG approximately 400 dollars (Smith, 2007). However, the cost of fountain water is 100 times less than that of bottled water per gallon. This means that PAG will be spending 2.4 dollars per day on water. Maintenance cost will be minimal.

Health, Safety and Hygiene

Alternative A – Bottled drinking water: The level of hygiene, safety and health in bottled water acquired from certified companies is good. This is because every employee will use his/her bottle solely. Contamination levels are almost zero (Gleick, 2010). However, it is the responsibility of the employee to ensure that he/she maintains cleanliness and replaces the bottle cap to minimize contamination.

Alternative B- Drinking water fountains installation: Drinking water fountains have fairly high levels of safety, hygiene and health. This is because the ideal designs are such that to minimize contamination of water through common facility use. PAG will educate the employees on the best practices of using the drinking water fountain. This will be best done through a banner placed near the water fountain. The observation of the above will give this option a striking edge to solving the drinking water problem.

Timing

Alternative A: Bottled drinking water will take a lot of the company’s time. Time will be spent in procuring the bottled water, transporting the water and distributing the water to the employees. The employees’ working time will be at stake.

Alternative B: Drinking water fountains will save PAG holding ltd a lot of useful time. This is because there will be no daily water procurement (Smith, 2007). The employees will also drink water very conveniently from a water fountain installed near their working space. This will result in increased company production and more profits. The water fountains source will be refilled after a considerable and better range of time.

Desirability
Alternative A: Bottled is quite desirable in terms odor free, non-salty, and bacteria and germs free water. This is will only apply if the employee observes his/her water. The employee will have the extra duty of ensuring that the water is closed to prevent entry of bacteria and germs when not being used (Wanjek, 2005). However, the employee may not abide to the above duty resulting to contamination. The supplying company will be obliged to observe the criteria but they may fail to supply the employees ‘desired water. Alternative B: Drinking water fountains have high scores in the supply of desirable water. The water will be fresh from the fountain’s nozzle and thus free from germs and bacteria and odor free. The main water supply for the fountains will be easy to monitor and make the necessary adjustments. The saltiness, odor, germs and bacteria will be monitored efficiently to ensure employees’ needs are met.

Practicability
Alternative A: Bottled drinking water provision is not very practical. It involves many parties and procedures. The environmental pollution resulting from the disposal of the plastic water bottles is demanding. It will not be convenient to the employees to manage their water bottles (Gleick, 2010).

Alternative B: Drinking water fountains are very practical because they are easy and affordable to install and maintain (Wiggins, 2010). An Internet review shows that many employees have found them from other companies easy to use and convenient.

Finding and Analysis
It is evident that alternative B is the most suitable method of provision of water. It is economical to install and maintain. It also very desirable, time saving, observes safety and hygiene, environmental sustainability and practicability. PAG will install water fountains in its premises.

Recommendation
It is recommended that PAG should procure and install drinking water fountains at their offices. They will save on costs; environmental sustainability, high standards of safety and hygiene and an improved workforce will be noted.

References

Gleick, P., H., (2010). Bottled and Sold: The Story behind Our Obsession with Bottled Water. Washington, DC: Island Press. Smith, A., F., (2007). The Oxford Companion to American Food and Drink. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Wanjek, C. (2005). Food at Work: Workplace Solutions for Malnutrition, Obesity and Chronic Diseases. Geneva,SW: International Labor Organization. Wiggins, J., M., (2010). Facilities Manager’s Desk Reference. Winchester: John Wiley & Sons.