Transition from Gas Equipment to Smart Cooking in School Kitchens: Where Was Efficiency Gained?

Located in Lancashire, England, Penwortham Priory Academy gradually replaced aging gas cooking equipment in its school kitchen with more automated systems. According to a case study by Foodservice Equipment Journal dated August 25, 2026, the school first invested in three RATIONAL iCombi Pro combi ovens, and later added an iVario cooking unit to replace the traditional stove system.

The school’s own statement confirms that the equipment is used in the main kitchen and in an additional catering area called the “Pod.” Penwortham Priory Academy announced in April 2026 that RATIONAL UK conducted a customer story shoot at the facility, where catering managers and the facility management team discussed the impact of the equipment on operations.

This detail is significant from a resource assessment perspective. The case in question is not an independent comparative equipment test; it is a customer success story prepared in collaboration with the manufacturer. Therefore, some of the claims regarding quality, energy, and efficiency are based on the experiences of school staff and the manufacturer's communication.

Nevertheless, the case provides a valuable example of what operational issues new generation cooking equipment is trying to solve in high-volume school kitchens.

The Problem Was Not Just the Age of the Equipment

Although the kitchen at Penwortham Priory Academy had been renovated previously, the school management began to be dissatisfied with the performance of the gas equipment over time.

According to Keith Bolton, the school’s Strategic Estates Development Manager, the existing gas appliances started to fail to deliver the expected performance over time and became more costly in terms of operation. Following this, alternative cooking systems were examined, and three iCombi Pro combi ovens were purchased.

One of the most visible effects of the change on the kitchen team was experienced in production planning.

Catering Manager Kirsten Billings states that in the old system, production had to be closely monitored until the last minute to ensure meals were ready by serving time; with the new equipment, cooking processes progressed more controllably. Billings also mentions that they achieve more even cooking in the same batch.

What is important here in terms of technology is not just that the oven is new. Combi ovens can combine multiple production processes such as roasting, baking, steaming, and reheating within the same family of devices by using hot air and steam in different proportions.

The main advantage of this for high-volume catering kitchens may be reducing the number of pieces of equipment, being able to program recipes, and achieving more consistent results across different shifts.

Need to Wait Four Hours at the Stove Reduced

The most striking aspect of the case from an operational standpoint is the transition to the iVario system.

Some large-volume meals prepared on the traditional stove in Penwortham Priory’s kitchen required constant staff supervision. According to Catering Manager Billings, for some productions, a team member had to monitor the stove for at least four hours. The school states that after the introduction of the iVario, this manual supervision requirement has significantly decreased.

The value of such a change in bulk meal operations should not be calculated merely as “faster cooking.”

A staff member being tied to a single production point for four hours means lost time that could be used for preparation, portioning, salad production, cleaning, or mise en place work for the next day.

In a system where automatic temperature and cooking control truly works, the staff can complete other tasks within the same time instead of continuous stirring or temperature control.

This situation is particularly significant in schools, hospitals, and corporate catering kitchens that produce hundreds of portions with limited staff.

Working Conditions Must Be Considered as Much as Efficiency

In evaluating professional kitchen equipment, energy consumption or production capacity is often highlighted. The Penwortham example shows that working conditions should also be added to the investment equation.

The school also shared that during the hot weather period in June 2026, catering staff worked in a kitchen that was quite hot due to ovens, stoves, and continuous production in conditions above 30°C.

Reducing gas open stoves does not directly prove how much the kitchen temperature has dropped; Penwortham has not published measurements on this.

However, in professional kitchen design, heat emitted from equipment, aspiration needs, and the thermal comfort of staff must be evaluated as part of the total system.

When making new equipment investments, it is essential to consider not only the nominal energy consumption of the device but also its indirect effects on ventilation and climate control.

“Switching from Gas to Electricity” Does Not Automatically Mean Energy Savings

One of the aspects of the case that requires careful consideration is the energy issue.

Foodservice Equipment Journal reports that the old gas devices became inefficient and costly. However, there is no public kWh consumption, energy bill, or payback period data comparing Penwortham Priory Academy’s old and new kitchens.

Therefore, it cannot be concluded from this case that “electric equipment consumes this much less energy than gas.”

The UK government’s Energy Technology List criteria also define energy performance criteria for both electric and gas models in combi ovens. This indicates that efficiency depends not only on the energy source used but also on the design, capacity, loading rate, and usage of the device.

The Department for Education also identifies kitchens as areas with high energy usage in its energy efficiency guide for school buildings. Therefore, how the catering team uses the equipment and how systems are managed during downtime also affect consumption.

RATIONAL claims in its technical content that the iVario system can consume less energy compared to traditional cooking equipment. The company also states that it conducted a comparative study in a school kitchen in France producing 750 meals a day with gas tilting pans and kettles. However, since these are results published by the manufacturer, they should not be used as proof of actual savings in Penwortham.

The Real Investment Calculation Should Be Based on Total Cost of Ownership

When purchasing new cooking equipment for a school, hotel, or restaurant kitchen, comparing only the device price can be misleading.

A more accurate approach is to calculate the total cost of ownership.

This calculation should consider the following items together:

• initial purchase and installation cost,

• necessary changes in electrical or gas infrastructure,

• energy and water consumption,

• ventilation needs,

• maintenance and service contracts,

• cleaning chemicals,

• staff training time,

• production capacity,

• time gained or lost in labor,

• economic lifespan of the equipment.

Especially when transitioning from an old gas kitchen to a high-powered electric system, it should be checked in advance whether the existing electrical infrastructure can handle the load.

It is also not enough for the new device to physically fit in the kitchen. The electrical panel, ventilation, water connections, drainage, and service access can change the total cost of the investment.

The maintenance issue should not be overlooked. In the UK, public catering equipment maintenance contracts typically cover both gas and electric professional devices for periodic and breakdown-based service. This means that as technology is renewed, the need for maintenance does not disappear; only the nature of the maintenance changes.

Technology Does Not Eliminate Staff Training

One of the strong points of smart cooking systems is programmable recipes and automatic control.

However, the real benefit of these systems emerges when staff can work comfortably with the equipment.

Keith Bolton also emphasizes the importance of staff acclimatizing to the technology in the Penwortham case. He notes that being able to use the time provided by the new devices to prepare different meals is possible only if the team adapts to the system.

This is a critical investment cost for businesses.

Buying a new combi oven and using it like an old oven can waste a significant portion of the device's functions. If programmable production, multi-product cooking, automatic cleaning, or temperature control are not utilized, the expected return on the technological investment may not materialize.

Therefore, training should also be included in the equipment purchase budget.

The Menu Can Change Along with the Equipment

In the experience of Penwortham Priory Academy, the impact of the equipment does not seem to be limited to production speed.

The catering team states that the new systems create more time for preparing different meals. The school’s current catering page also shows that there are hot meals, snacks, and various service options for students.

One of the significant outcomes of multifunctional cooking equipment emerges here.

If the same device supports different cooking techniques, the menu team may not only produce existing products faster but may also include some recipes that were previously seen as operationally difficult.

However, increasing menu diversity should also be done in a controlled manner. As equipment capacity increases, creating excessive SKUs can complicate purchasing and preparation.

The goal of technology should not be to expand the menu limitlessly but to enable more controlled production.

Implications for School and Bulk Meal Kitchens in Turkey

The Penwortham case is the experience of a single school in England. Since costs, energy tariffs, staff wages, and kitchen infrastructure differ from Turkey, the results cannot be directly transferred to Turkey.

Nevertheless, similar questions can be asked when making investment decisions in schools, hospitals, factories, universities, and central production kitchens in Turkey.

Is the old device being replaced because it truly consumes high energy, or merely because of its age?

How many different devices can the new equipment take over?

How many staff-hours are saved per shift?

Does the cleaning time after service change?

Is the maintenance and spare parts infrastructure sufficient?

Does the new technology strengthen recipe and portion standards?

Without measurable answers to these questions, investing solely based on the “smart kitchen” narrative may not be correct.

According to Stafflink

The strongest aspect of the Penwortham Priory Academy case is not how technological the new devices are, but how staff time is redistributed.

A system where a kitchen staff member does not have to monitor a single stove for four hours can create a real operational advantage. However, this advantage only holds economic value if the freed-up time can be converted into other production, preparation, or quality tasks.

In our view, success indicators for equipment investments in professional kitchens should be measured after purchase: energy consumption per meal, staff-hours/meal, production time, waste, service delays, downtime, and maintenance costs should be compared with the pre-investment period.

Since these numerical data are not publicly available in the Penwortham case, it is not possible to say how much financial savings RATIONAL systems provided at the school.

However, the case indicates an important direction: renewing old equipment is not just an energy project. Kitchen flow, staff ergonomics, production standards, menu capacity, and maintenance models are all parts of the same investment decision.

The feature that makes a device more efficient is as much about the value in the technical catalog as it is about how many tasks it truly eliminates in the kitchen.