Remerciez-le!

Remerciez @Admin pour avoir partagé cet document gratuitement, de la manière la plus simple, en partageant sur les réseaux sociaux.

The innovation development process of Michelin-starred chefs Michael Ottenbache

The innovation development process of Michelin-starred chefs Michael Ottenbacher San Diego State University, San Diego, California, USA, and Robert J. Harrington University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada Abstract Purpose – This paper aims to compare and contrast the innovation process described by Michelin-starred chefs with existing theoretical innovation process models. Design/methodology/approach – Semi structured interviews with Michelin-starred chefs in Germany were conducted to better understand the underlying factors and dimensions that describe process practices. A sample of 12 Michelin-starred chefs awarded one, two or the maximum of three stars were interviewed about how they develop new food creations in their restaurants. Findings – Research results indicated that the development process of Michelin-starred chefs has similarities and differences to traditional concepts of new product development. Michelin-starred chefs’ innovation processes do not include a business analysis stage and because of the simultaneity of production and consumption and the importance of human factors in service delivery, employees play a more important role in ﬁne dining innovation than in other product innovation situations. Furthermore, Michelin-starred chefs’ innovation processes do not implement an all-encompassing evaluation system. Research limitations/implications – The study was conducted in only one country and on a small sample. Based on an analysis of the ﬁndings, the innovation development process of Michelin chefs can be broken down into seven main steps. Originality/value – The present study expands the scope of hospitality innovation research and the ﬁndings have not only important implications for high-end restaurant settings but also other restaurant segments, and other hospitality service endeavors. Keywords Innovation, Product development, Restaurants Paper type Research paper There are several beneﬁts of innovation, but in the context of hospitality and restaurants, the major beneﬁt of successful innovation is to be or become more competitive (Ottenbacher and Gnoth, 2005). Because innovations in the food and hospitality industries can (generally) be quickly copied or imitated, a continuous innovation process has been theorized to heighten “barriers to imitation” to the competition (Harrington, 2004). Thus, innovation helps restaurants keep their portfolio competitive and thereby achieve long-term competitive advantages. Although many restaurants recognize the importance of innovation, it is not always clear how to successfully create and design new dishes and menus. This article will seek to address this challenge by providing insight about the development process for ﬁne dining food innovations. Because new restaurants constantly come to the market with new food creations that change the basis of competition, ﬁne dining restaurants operate in a highly competitive environment. Successful chefs must be able to adapt and evolve if they want to be successful in the short- and long-term. Thus, to succeed in this competitive The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/0959-6119.htm IJCHM 19,6 444 International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Vol. 19 No. 6, 2007 pp. 444-460 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 0959-6119 DOI 10.1108/09596110710775110 environment, ﬁne dining restaurants must systematically develop innovations. While many ﬁne dining restaurants recognize the importance of innovation, the authors found little published research on the topic. Consequently, how to successfully create innovations is not always clear for hospitality managers and chefs. This article presents a contemporary view of Michelin-starred chefs’ innovation development process. The objective is to advance the knowledge of innovation, speciﬁcally ﬁne dining innovations and thus provide hospitality managers and chefs with the knowledge to understand how to manage innovation. To achieve these objectives, we compare and contrast the process described by three-star, two-star, and one-star Michelin chefs with existing theoretical innovation process models. The authors focus on the innovation process of Michelin-starred chefs for several reasons. First, compared to other foodservice segments, the innovations developed in high-end, ﬁne dining settings are very likely to be individual and original in nature, feature the ﬁnest quality products and service, and require high-level tacit skills by chef participants to adapt and survive in this environment. This situation seems particularly likely of chefs in Michelin-starred settings. Other restaurant and foodservice segments are likely to utilize centralized R&D techniques, use pre-made products, and have standardized menus across the organization. Finally, Michelin-starred and other high-end operations are likely to be the top level of “trickle down” effects on the use of food products, trends in cooking style, use of new cooking technology, and creative innovations in service (NDP Group, 2004). The Michelin Guide The ﬁrst Michelin Guide was published in 1900 in France by the Michelin Tyre Company. In Europe, the Michelin Guide (sometimes called Guide Rouge) is the most respected ranking system for ﬁne gastronomy and cuisine (Johnson et al., 2005). The Michelin Guide is based on anonymous inspections and independence, featuring a selection of the best hotels and restaurants in all comfort and price categories. Regardless of the style of cuisine, Michelin stars are awarded to restaurants on ﬁve criteria: the quality of products, mastering of ﬂavors and cooking, personality of the cuisine, and value for money and consistency. One star is considered “a very good restaurant in its category”, two stars reﬂect “excellent cooking, worth a detour”, while three stars display “exceptional cuisine, worth a special journey” (Michelin, 2006). The guide has a strong inﬂuence on consumers’ choice of ﬁne dining establishments. Gaining or losing a Michelin star often results in enormous changes in business and proﬁts. The loss of a Michelin star can cut a restaurant’s sales by as much as 50 percent (Johnson et al., 2005) and consequently lead to the closure of the enterprise. Therefore, the risk involved in food innovation implementation is high. The generic innovation process NASA’s space program in the US was one of the pioneers in implementing a product development process during the 1960s (Cooper, 2001). These ﬁrst generation processes were largely engineering driven and more a measurement and control tool. Most of the innovation process models implemented today are second generation models, which usually involve six required steps for managing the process effectively and transforming new ideas into new products or services. According to Cooper and Edgett (1999), the innovation development process can be deﬁned as a formal blueprint, The innovation development process 445 roadmap or thought process for driving a new project from the idea stage through to market launch and beyond. These process models, if applied in a disciplined way, help ﬁrms to improve effectiveness and efﬁciency of innovations so that scarce resources are not wasted (Trott, 2005). The use of development process models will not necessarily guarantee success, but the use of a model does increase the chance for success (Cooper and Edgett, 1999). Innovation process models tend to follow the format of the Booz, Allen & Hamilton (1982) model (Urban and Hauser, 1993). These models consist of the following six steps: (1) Idea generation. (2) Screening. (3) Business analysis. (4) Concept development. (5) Final testing. (6) Commercialization. Innovation process speciﬁc to foodservice operations Harrington (2004) points out several limitations of generic product and food product innovation process models and their applicability to “real-time” foodservice settings. Speciﬁcally, he suggests the need for a more organic model that is interdisciplinary in nature integrating strategic action planning, marketing considerations, food science and culinary knowledge perspectives to achieve a truer representation of the process. In addition, several assumptions in generic innovation and food product process models do not address the foodservice situation: the assumption of the R&D department as a separate unit, clear lines of distinction among the sequential steps, and secrecy prior to and during introduction. According to his framework, these assumptions generally do not hold true in the foodservice environment and this situation limits the obstruction of imitation by competitors. Harrington’s basic model appears to be derived from earlier food product development models integrating many links and feedback loops among and between its phases. This four-phase framework appears useful in that it integrates the need to balance and adjust for internal and external tensions throughout the process. The four proposed phases include innovation formulation, innovation implementation, evaluation and control, and innovation introduction. Methodology Little empirical research has been conducted on this topic and no reliable instrument has been developed by which to measure how Michelin-star chefs create new dishes for their operations. The intended research plan was to conduct interviews with Michelin-starred chefs in Germany to better understand the underlying factors and dimensions that describe process practices. We decided that the most appropriate methodology would be to seek qualitative data using semi-structured interviews. This method allows the researcher to ask supplementary questions to attain deeper understanding of complex issues, thus creating new knowledge. Qualitative research is appropriate when the research problem is exploratory and intuitive and the focus is on social processes rather than social structures (Ghauri et al., 1995). Therefore, in June IJCHM 19,6 446 and July 2006, semi-structured interviews were conducted, in person, with the chefs. These interviews lasted 60 to 90 minutes each. The researchers identiﬁed the restaurants in Germany that were awarded at least one Michelin star in the 2006 edition. In order to compare the innovation process of the three Michelin star categories, we choose chefs from each star category. From these uploads/Science et Technologie/ the-innovation-development.pdf