An important shortcoming in the menu analysis literature is that the models developed have not been shown concretely in connection with the needs of practitioners (such as restaurant managers, food and beverage managers or kitchen chefs). The starting point of the models proposed..
How is Menu Analysis Performed in Practice? Opinions of Chefs of Five Star Hotels
Assoc. Dr. Bahattin ÖZDEMİR
Instructor See. Oğuz NEBİOĞLU
Login
Menu analysis is accepted as one of the most important tools of menu management (Özdemir and Çalışkan 2013). The content of menu analysis consists of two basic dimensions. First of all, the performance of each menu item in the menu is evaluated in terms of performance indicators determined by the management (Çalışkan and Özdemir 2011). Then, improvement studies are carried out for menu items that perform below expectations (Jones and Mifli 2001).
From an academic point of view, with the understanding of the importance of menus for food and beverage businesses, the number of academic studies on the methods that managers can use to develop high-performance menus has increased rapidly in the last 30 years. In this context, the menu analysis literature has shown remarkable developments in terms of both the increase in the number of alternative menu analysis approaches proposed and methodological aspects. However, almost all of these developments originate from foreign literature.
In the Turkish literature, there are few studies on menu analysis (Rızaoğlu 1991; Bölükoğlu 2000; Bölükoğlu and Türksoy 2001; Sarıışık and Kaya 2004; Koşan and Geçgin 2013) and it is observed that they mainly adopt approaches developed abroad.
An important shortcoming in the menu analysis literature is that the models developed have not been shown concretely in connection with the needs of practitioners (such as restaurant managers, food and beverage managers or kitchen chefs). The starting point of the models proposed as a solution to the problem of analyzing menus by practitioners is not the needs in the application, but the deficiencies in the literature. This is an important factor that weakens the link between menu analysis models and practitioners in the literature.
Few studies examining the views, approaches and practices of practitioners have reached results that support these explanations and show that practitioners do not use the methods suggested by the literature (Kwong 2005). Therefore, it cannot be said that we know very well what the applicators really need or what approach they take in determining menu performance. For this reason, it becomes difficult to develop simple and effective menu analysis methods that can meet the needs of practitioners.
In this context, the aim of the study is to examine in depth the approaches of practitioners (hotel kitchen chefs) to menu analysis within the scope of qualitative research design. Thus, a conceptual structure regarding the situation of menu analysis in practice will be revealed. Such a conceptual structure can be a first step for new models to be developed for menu analysis, as well as a reference for researchers and practitioners in evaluating and improving the effectiveness of existing models.
Literature Review
In this study, a grouping was made as follows, taking into account the general aims and methods of the previous studies in the literature, and the related literature was examined within this framework. Thus, instead of classifying the proposed menu analysis models and determining their deficiencies, it has become possible to group the studies in the literature and to identify the missing points of each group of studies.
Adaptations
In terms of the number of studies conducted, adaptations constitute the largest group in the menu analysis literature. The common point of these studies is that some models previously developed in areas such as accounting, finance, strategic management and performance management are adapted to the menu area to analyze the performance of menu items. In this context, the first systematic models are menu analysis methods based on matrices. In the creation of these matrices, the cost of food items, the level of appreciation (sales amount) or contribution margin of the menu items were taken into account and different matrices were developed according to the performance indicators used.
The best known among these are the models in the work of Miller (1980), Kasavana and Smith (1982), and Pavesic (1983). The common feature of these models is that they form an adapted form of portfolio analysis, which was used in the field of marketing and strategic management, to the analysis of menus (Cohen et al. 2006). In the following years, Hayes and Huffman (1995) and Bayou and Bennett (1992) suggested profitability analysis models for menu items, arguing that all costs could not be taken into account in matrix-based models and therefore the profitability of menu items could not be calculated correctly. However, these models do not bring a completely new and original approach to menu analysis, and they use the concepts of cost and profit that are established in the field of accounting. In the international literature, in the last decade, the weight of two main tendencies within the adaptation group has begun to be felt. These;
Ability to accurately determine costs and profitability and include them in the matrix model (activity-based costing method)
Ability to calculate the relative efficiency of menu items by including many variables in the menu analysis (data envelopment analysis)
A group of researchers argue that it is possible to determine the costs for each of the menu items completely and accurately, and thus to calculate the profitability of the menu items more realistically, by adapting the activity-based costing (FTM) method developed in the field of accounting to menu analysis. In this context, Raab and Mayer (2003)
firstly they showed that FTM is applicable in the field of restaurant management, then Raab et al. (2006) adapted the method to the performance appraisal of menu items. While making this adaptation, the matrix created with FTM was compared with the traditional matrix model (menu engineering) and it was concluded that the model using FTM produced more accurate results.
A group of researchers also recommends the use of data envelopment analysis (DEA) in menu analysis. Accordingly, by adding many variables to the menu analysis, it is possible to calculate an efficiency score for each menu item in the menu and to compare the items in the menu with each other according to this score. In this context, firstly, Reynolds (2004) showed that DEA, which was developed in the field of performance management, is a method that can be used in the performance evaluation of restaurant businesses. While doing this, a large number of input and output variables (Output variables: Sales, tips, workforce turnover.
Input variables: variables such as wages, number of seats, number of service personnel, number of competitors). After showing successful adaptation to the restaurant business field, Taylor et al. (2009) conducted a case study in three units of a restaurant chain to demonstrate that the performance of menus can also be evaluated with DEA. Comparing the results obtained by DEA with the results obtained by the menu engineering method applied to the same menu items, Taylor et al. (2009) suggested that data envelopment analysis is a more effective method.
Although a step-by-step and systematic process has been followed in adapting ABC or DEA methods to menu analysis, it does not seem possible to say that the needs and expectations of practitioners are taken into account in this process. The process starts with identifying the shortcomings of previous models in the literature, rather than identifying the needs of practitioners. In the ongoing stages of the process, no feedback is received from the practitioners, although the method is tested in sample restaurant businesses, the main purpose here is to collect data to operate the method. Thus, it can be concluded that the models developed recently are far from the practitioners.
compilations
Although it consists of relatively few studies, it is possible to say that the reviews are useful in following the developments in the menu analysis literature, seeing the contributions of existing studies to the field, and understanding the similar aspects of existing models and the points where they differ from each other. In this context, it is seen that in the studies carried out by Taylor and Brown (2007) and more recently Özdemir (2012), classifications that allow a holistic view of the menu analysis literature have been made.
Taylor and Brown (2007) mainly consider menu analysis models in two main groups and explain them one by one. Accordingly, quantitative menu analysis, such as matrix models, models based on profitability calculations, and the model in which LeBruto et al. (1995) added labor costs to menu engineering, are classified as traditional methods. Taylor and Brown (2007) show data envelopment analysis among alternative approaches to menu analysis. Özdemir (2012), on the other hand, examines menu analysis approaches in four main groups.
These are matrix-based models, models developed by improving matrix-based models, profitability analysis and multidimensional models (such as data envelopment analysis). It is stated that the performance indicators frequently used by these models are food cost, contribution margin, weighted contribution margin, sales amount, likability, gross profit, profit and selling price. Despite their important contributions, it can be said that the reviews mostly document the developments in the menu analysis literature and thus appeal to academics who are interested in the subject rather than practitioners. For this reason, reviews are insufficient to show practitioners' approaches and practices regarding menu analysis.
Field Studies
It is known that the number of empirical studies examining the experience and approaches of practitioners on menu is limited. The field studies that are thought to be related to menu analysis are Chan and Au (1998); It remains limited to the studies of Jones and Mifli (2001) and Kwong (2005). The research of Sarıışık and Özlenen (2004) from the national literature can be added to these studies.
Chan and Au (1998) examined how practitioners use cost information to determine the profitability of menu items in a study they conducted with 75 managers working in restaurants in China. It has been determined that the cost of food supplies is the most important cost item because the practitioners consider profitability more as a contribution margin (the amount calculated by subtracting the cost of food materials from the sales price). Jones and Mifli (2001) conducted a qualitative research on different aspects of menu management (menu planning, menu pricing, menu design and menu analysis) in seven different restaurant chains in England.
According to the research findings on menu analysis, it is understood that practitioners mainly use the criteria of gross profit, sales amount and cost (in evaluating the performance of menu items). In addition, feedback from employees and guests is also taken into account. Another important finding of Jones and Mifli (2001) is related to the improvement strategies applied for the menu items whose performance is deemed inadequate after the performance evaluation of the menu items. Accordingly, two main groups of strategies can be mentioned.
These were determined as making changes in the meal (presentation, price, cost and changes in the recipe) and making changes in the menu (promotion, positioning, retention, removal from the menu). Kwong's (2005) research was also carried out in three restaurants serving Far Eastern Cuisine, while dealing with the main topics of menu management (menu planning, menu design and menu analysis). An important finding made by Kwong (2005) in terms of menu analysis is that practitioners do not use menu analysis methods in the relevant literature, but instead
analyze menus according to their qualitative evaluations based on their intuition and experience.
Another important finding is that the option to remove from the menu is the last option considered for menu items with low performance. In a study conducted with 121 managers working in food and beverage businesses operating in Kocaeli, Sarıışık and Özlenen (2004) examined the managers' thoughts on menu planning, design and analysis and determined that the most important criterion taken into account in the analysis of the menus was the sales amount of the menu items.
Although the field studies carried out on menu analysis have provided useful findings in terms of seeing the issue from the eyes of practitioners, it should be said that there are some missing aspects. First of all, the number of studies on this subject is limited. In addition, these researches are limited in terms of their subjects (focusing only on the cost element or examining other variables related to the menu other than menu analysis). Considering the years of publication, their actuality becomes controversial. All these shortcomings point directly to the need for a current research that focuses on practitioners' views, experiences and approaches to menu analysis.
Method
Qualitative research approach was adopted in this study in order to make an in-depth analysis of menu analysis applications. Within the scope of the qualitative approach, semi-structured interview was used as the data collection method and content analysis was used as the data analysis method.
Sample and Interviews
The use of purposive sampling method is frequently preferred in qualitative research (Özdemir 2010). Purposive sampling method was also used in this study. The five-star hotels operating in the Alanya district of Antalya and offering à la carte restaurant services constitute the study universe.
However, kitchen chefs who met some criteria were included in the sample. Accordingly, the kitchen chefs to be included in the sample should (i) be working in a hotel with an à la carte restaurant service, (ii) be the person primarily responsible for the management of the à la carte restaurant's menu, and (iii) be willing to share their experiences.
Among the reasons for the selection of Alanya are the presence of many five-star hotels in the district (Çetinsöz and Ege 2012) and the widespread availability of à la carte restaurant services in these hotels, as well as the fact that one of the authors of the study resides in the district and has communication with potential participants who can be included in the study. takes. Thus, it became easier to get in touch with potential participants at the first stage.
The main reason why the study focused on à la carte restaurants, especially in hotel businesses, is that these restaurants have similarities and differences with independent restaurants outside the hotel. Although they are similar to independent restaurants in terms of having menus that are in effect for a certain period and have a multi-choice structure, they do not charge their guests for the food and beverages they consume. Thus, a la carte restaurants in hotels create a suitable research context in terms of having menus that can be analyzed and understanding how menu analysis is done without the pressure of sales price and sales revenue.
Appointments were made from the kitchen chefs, who were determined by convenient sampling method and agreed to participate in the study, to conduct interviews, and they were interviewed at their offices in the hotels they worked. In this way, 12 kitchen chefs could be included in the sample. Since the data reached a certain saturation in the interviews with this number of chefs (the stories started to be repeated), the number of participants was deemed sufficient.
It is seen that small samples are considered sufficient in qualitative studies conducted with the participation of chefs abroad. For example, Ottenbacher and Harrington (2007) interviewed 12 chefs in a study on the innovation process in restaurants. In the current study, the interviews were recorded with a voice recorder with the permission of each interviewee. The interviews lasted an hour on average. Table 1 contains information about the demographic characteristics and work experiences of the chefs participating in the research.
|
Katılımcı
|
Cinsiyet
|
Yaş
|
Eğitim
|
Toplam
|
|
No
|
|
|
Durumu
|
İş Deneyimi
|
|
K1
|
Erkek
|
35
|
Üniversite
|
12 Yıl
|
|
K2
|
Erkek
|
53
|
İlköğretim
|
40 Yıl
|
|
K3
|
Erkek
|
40
|
İlköğretim
|
28 Yıl
|
|
K4
|
Erkek
|
56
|
Lise
|
40 Yıl
|
|
K5
|
Erkek
|
30
|
Lise
|
15 Yıl
|
|
K6
|
Erkek
|
40
|
Lise
|
23 Yıl
|
|
K7
|
Erkek
|
45
|
Lise
|
25 Yıl
|
|
K8
|
Erkek
|
36
|
İlköğretim
|
20 Yıl
|
|
K9
|
Erkek
|
45
|
Lise
|
20 Yıl
|
|
K10
|
Erkek
|
48
|
İlköğretim
|
30 Yıl
|
|
K11
|
Erkek
|
35
|
İlköğretim
|
20 Yıl
|
|
K12
|
Erkek
|
35
|
Lise
|
20 Yıl
|
According to the information in Table 1, all of the chefs included in the sample of the study are male, their age ranges from 30 to 56. Six of the chefs are high school graduates, five are primary school graduates and one is university graduate. The duration of their work experience is between 12 and 40 years. Therefore, it can be said that the research participants are experienced in their profession.
Question form
A semi-structured questionnaire was used during the interviews in order to contribute to the realization of all the interviews with a certain degree of consistency and not to miss the main issues related to the menu analysis. Thus, according to the progress of the interviews, it was made possible to direct additional questions that question the details to the participants and to collect data on these issues.
There are basically two groups of questions in the semi-structured question form. The questions at the end of the form aim to obtain demographic information about the participants. In the other group questions, the following issues were addressed in order to get the experiences and opinions of the participants about the menu analysis.
• Responsibilities related to the menu,
• The points they pay attention to while evaluating the menu performance,
• Their approach to menu analysis and how they make changes to the Menu.
Analysis
The qualitative data collected through the interviews were transferred from the voice recorder to the computer environment and then deciphered and put on paper. Thus, the texts to be subjected to content analysis were obtained. Then, these texts were analyzed. At this stage, coding, determining the categories, naming the categories and defining the features of the categories were carried out. First, two researchers read the texts several times to gain familiarity. In the meantime, the first ideas that appeared were noted.
After the first readings, a code scheme was developed based on the texts with the support of the related literature. Then, it was returned to the texts with the code scheme in hand and the process of assigning the contents of the texts to the relevant codes was carried out. This process was done by two researchers separately, and then these two researchers came together to compare and discuss their results. These discussions continued until the differences regarding the codes to which the contents were assigned were resolved and finally an agreement was reached.
After the coding process, the stage of creating the categories was started. According to Graneheim and Lundman (2004), the category consists of a group of contents that have common aspects, and the categories can also be divided into sub-categories or the sub-categories can be combined to form a category.
In this study, sub-categories were formed by grouping similar codes by using an abstraction process, and main categories were revealed by bringing together sub-categories according to their similarities. During and at the end of this process, discussions were held between the two researchers to reach consensus on the formation and naming of categories. Although the content analysis carried out in the study is described here as a linear process, this analysis actually progressed as a process involving returns and repetitions.
Researchers should not ignore the issues related to the trustworthiness of content analysis. Graneheim and Lundman (2004), Elo and Kyngas (2007), and Hsich and Shannon (2005) state that researchers can demonstrate the reliability of their content analysis in several ways. The first of these is to give detailed information about the research and analysis process. Thus, the reader can understand exactly at what stages and how the research took place. For this reason, in this study, it has been tried to give as much detailed information as possible about the research method.
Another way to demonstrate reliability is to quote directly from the analyzed text to show links between data and findings. In this study, direct quotations from the words of the participants in the presentation of the findings were given in relation to each finding.
Coding in content analysis is a process that plays a critical role in terms of reliability. Hall and Valentin (2005) point out that coding should be done by at least two different coders to ensure reliability. Therefore, in this study, two researchers did the coding separately.
On the other hand, the development of the code scheme, the application of the code scheme to the text, and discussions during the determination of the categories among the researchers who carried out the analysis, and the search for consensus also contribute to reliability (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). Finally, getting opinions from the participants of the research on the findings of the research also increases the reliability.
In this direction, six of the chefs interviewed in this study were contacted again, the findings obtained as a result of the research were explained to them and their opinions were asked. The chefs whose opinions were taken at the end of this process stated that the research findings reflect their own thoughts and experiences.
Findings and Discussion
The findings of this study are presented in Table 2. As shown in the table, the conceptual structure of the menu analysis in the à la carte restaurants of the hotel businesses in the sample consists of five main categories and ten subcategories. Table 2 also provides definitions for each sub-category. However, these definitions are not in the form of formal definitions of the relevant sub-category. It mostly reflects the opinions of the kitchen chefs about the related concept. Below, each main category is explained together with its sub-categories and with relevant quotations.
The first of the main categories related to menu analysis in à la carte restaurants of hotel businesses is the need for chefs to make changes in menus. Two sub-categories within the scope of this main category are named as the beginning of the season and the in-season according to the time of the change to be made in the menu. In the following excerpt, it is seen that the participant with the code K3 was thinking about the changes he could make for the new season's menu while reviewing the previous season's menu at the beginning of the season:
“While we were working on the menu at the beginning of the season, what menu did we apply the previous year, what will we change from the menus this year; main course, hot starter, starters etc. identify them and do the studies...”
The quote from the participant coded K11 is also in line with these explanations:
“The menus change from time to time... They are revised at the beginning of each season.”
The participant with the code K2 explains why he needs to change the menu at the beginning of the season as follows:
“If the guest sees the same menu every year, they get bored. In other words, it is always innovation, what can we do better, be it in the patisserie, in the main courses, in the hot...”
The participant with the code K9 explains in the following excerpt, in which situations the need to change the menu arises during the season:
“Because the guests here are constantly changing, the menus of our à la carte restaurant are also not changed much, you know, from the complaints section... etc. As long as there are no obvious complaints like this, we continue from there.”
|
Ana Kategori
|
Alt Kategoriler
|
İçerikler
|
|
Menüde
Değişiklik
İhtiyacı
|
Sezon Başı
|
Yeni sezonun menüsünü planlamak üzere her sezon başında bir önceki sezonun menüsünü gözden geçirerek ne tür değişiklikler yapılabileceğini belirlemek amacıyla ihtiyaç hissedilmesi
|
|
Sezon İçi
|
Bütün bir sezon yürürlükte olmak üzere sezon başında planlanmış olan menüde sezon içerisinde misafirlerden gelen talep ve şikâyetler doğrultusunda değişiklik yapma ihtiyacının duyulması
|
|
Ölçütler
|
Maliyet
|
Menü kalemlerinin performansının otel işletmelerinin belirlemiş olduğu maliyet hedefine göre değerlendirilmesi ve bu değerlendirmede maliyetin ana belirleyicileri olarak menü kaleminin hazırlama kolaylığı ile yiyecek malzemelerinin bulunabilirliğinin dikkate alınması
|
|
Misafir
Memnuniyeti
|
Menü kalemlerinin performansının alakart restoranlarda hizmet sunulan misafirlerin memnuniyet düzeylerine göre değerlendirilmesi ve bu değerlendirmede menü kalemlerinin tüketilme düzeyleri ile bunlarla ilgili alınan şikâyetlerin sayısının dikkate alınması
|
|
Yöntemler
|
Tabaktaki
Artıkları
Gözlemleme
|
Servis sonrasında misafir masasından gelen tabağın içerisindeki yemeğin ne kadarının tüketildiğinin gözle kontrol etme, not alma ve fotoğraflama yolu ile izlenmesi
|
|
Geribildirim
Alma ve
Değerlendirme
|
Şikâyetleri dinleme, yüz yüze görüşme ve anket uygulama yöntemleri ile aldıkları hizmetten memnuniyetleri konusunda misafirlerden geribildirimler ve öneriler alınması ve bunların menü performansının değerlendirilmesinde kullanılması
|
|
İyileştirmeler
|
Menüden
Çıkarma
|
Performansı yetersiz görülen menü kaleminin menüden çıkarılarak yerine daha iyi performans göstereceğine inanılan yeni bir menü kaleminin konması yolu ile menü performansının iyileştirilmesi
|
|
Revizyon
Yapma
|
Performansı yetersiz görülen menü kaleminin reçetesi ve sunumunda değişiklikler yapılması yoluyla performansının iyileştirilmesi
|
|
Alakart
Restoranın Özellikleri
|
Masa Servisi
|
Alakart restoranlarda otelin açık büfe sunulan restoranından farklı olarak misafirlere masasında servis yapılması (sipariş alma ve yiyecek ve içeceklerin servisi işlemlerinin garsonlar tarafından misafirin masasından kalkmasına gerek kalmadan gerçekleştirilmesi)
|
|
Sınırlı Kullanım
Hakkı
|
Otelde konaklayan misafir sayısına oranla daha düşük düzeyde kapasiteye sahip olmaları nedeniyle otel misafirlerine konaklamaları boyunca alakart restoranlarda sınırlı sayıda (genellikle bir kez) yemek yeme hakkının verilmesi
|
The findings of the study show that the chefs feel the need to analyze the menu more during the periods when they will make changes in the menu. In a study reported by Morrison (1997) and conducted with managers responsible for menu planning of 21 restaurants (16 chefs, 5 restaurant managers or owners), changes were made in the menus every three or six months, and these changes also reflected the menu analysis. indicated as necessary.
Therefore, both previous research and the findings of the current study show that the need to make changes in the menu is one of the important factors that determine the need to analyze the menu. The chefs within the scope of this study periodically feel this need at the beginning of the season, however, the performance of the dishes in the menu can be reviewed during the season according to the demands or complaints from the guests, and changes can be made in the menu if necessary. Therefore, it is understood that the chefs participating in the research are open to menu analysis, they make these analyzes periodically (seasonally), and they can also make menu analysis outside the analysis periods (in-season) according to the need.
According to the findings in Table 2, it is understood that the participants took into account two main criteria, cost and guest satisfaction, while analyzing the menus. Chefs think that the cost of a menu item is shaped by the effect of two factors, the ease of preparation of that menu item and the availability of ingredients. In this context, the words of the participant with the code K7 give an idea about how important the ease of preparation is in à la carte restaurants:
“A la carte, we prefer this. For example, the quick cooking feature should be selected. There is no à la carte waiting for every dish to be cooked for hours... You are sure of its taste, the eater will surely like it, but if it takes a long time to prepare, you can automatically eliminate it.”
The participant with the code K5 clearly reveals the effect of the availability of the materials required for the production of a menu item on the cost of food with the following statements:
“My cook at my Chinese restaurant this year is Chinese. But there was only one complaint I received from all the guests. Food is not Chinese food. Because the material you use is Turkish material. You use soy sauce made in Turkey manufactured. Well... I'm sorry to Europe. If you import from Asia, there is an unbelievable cost dimension.”
A similar relationship can be seen in the words of the participant coded K4:
“I am preparing it, I submit it to my general manager's approval. Of course, we prepare and present the cost of these. The flow of the material is extremely important here, so it is important that we find the material, which is our raw material, and supply it to the facility.”
In the evaluation of the performance of the menu items in terms of cost, the food material cost target determined by the hotel management is also an important factor. The following statements of the participant coded K9 provide clues in this regard:
“How much is my kitchen cost today; 7.20. What did I use, I used two tons of meat this month, I used 500 kilos of cheddar, etc. etc. After the complete inputs and outputs are made and counted by this cost department, the number of guests in the hotel is already known, and accommodation is obtained by multiplying and dividing them.”
The participants try to understand the satisfaction of the guests about the menu items by looking at the number of complaints and consumption levels, and in this way, they include guest satisfaction in the analysis as an important criterion in evaluating the menu performance. The participant with the code K1 explains how he evaluates the menu items of an à la carte restaurant for which he is responsible, depending on whether or not he receives any complaints about the meals in the menu:
“Menu planning is directly proportional to the feedback from the guests... Again, I will give the example of the Mediterranean (the name of an à la carte restaurant in the hotel). We have not received any complaints from the Mediterranean for years. We didn't get any negativity in starters and appetizers, and we didn't get deserts in main courses either. So we continue.”
The participant coded K5 draws attention to the size of the number of complaints.
“We are not dependent on one person. Our aim is to capture the percentage of thousands, tens of thousands. Otherwise, it doesn't matter if a thousand people liked it and one person did not."
It is understood from the following statements of participant K6 that some chefs use a more formal method to monitor the consumption level of menu items.
“For example, how many people is the capacity of the a la carte? I'm throwing 40 people made a reservation today, right? I'm watching these 40 people for a week. Our main course is five courses. Which of these five types of food is consumed the most? We are making a chart. What are the less consumed ones? We're investigating it... Why is this under-consumed? Does the guest want or not eat, or does the guest not want it at all? We are working accordingly.”
The participant K7 explains that he evaluates the performance of the menu item by considering a numerical target according to the consumption level criterion, with the following words:
“We are trying to include a food that is more preferable among 10 percent. So we're looking at choice."
The findings show that the chefs participating in the study know that they have to meet a cost target. In hotel businesses, budgets are the studies in which these cost targets are determined and especially annual sales, cost and profitability estimations are included.
There are research findings in both national (Uyar and Bilgin 2011) and international (Jones 2008) literature that budget is used as an important tool in determining cost targets and controlling costs in hotels. Therefore, the need to evaluate the performance of menu items in terms of cost in order to achieve the cost target determined by the budget for the chefs within the scope of the research makes itself felt.
For this reason, it can be said that chefs consider two factors, especially the ease of preparation of menu items and the availability of materials used in their production. On the other hand, chefs pay special attention to guest satisfaction, and guest satisfaction is monitored through the consumption level of the meals on the menu and the number of complaints received about them.
The point that draws attention here is that although financial indicators such as sales amount, sales revenue, cost and profitability are mainly used in the analysis of the performance of menu items in the menu analysis literature (Özdemir 2012), there is a very important factor such as guest satisfaction, which is not included in the developed models due to the difficulty of digitizing it. The qualitative variable (Saura et al. 2008) is used in the analyzes by the chefs participating in this research.
According to the findings in Table 3, it was determined that the methods used by the participants in the context of collecting data on the performance of menu items were observing the leftovers on the plate, receiving feedback and evaluation. Checking the plates coming from the guest table after consumption can be seen by the chefs as a way to understand how much a guest consumes a meal and therefore how much he or she likes that food. The quote from the participant coded K1 reveals both how the control of the plates is done and the relationship of this control with the level of consumption of the food:
“After the waiters take the blanks, there is a bar desk, next to the scullery, where they leave it there. The captain or head waiter takes notes. This is what was eaten in this plate, in the beginning, this was eaten, this was not eaten. We even photograph it and then analyze it. We say yes, we should not put it. Because out of 200 guests, only 20 ate and he ate half.”
The following statements of the participant coded K3 also support these explanations:
“Usually we look at the plates after the guest has left or while the waiter is clearing the table. If there is a lot of food on the plate, there is a problem, that is, if he does not eat, but generally if the plates are empty and cleaned, there is no problem.”
Participants see guests as a very important source of feedback to collect data on the performance of menu items. In particular, in order to understand the relationship between menu items and guest satisfaction, they constantly receive feedback and suggestions from guests through listening to complaints, face-to-face interviews and/or survey application methods. It is understood that they use this feedback and suggestions to analyze the menus. Quotations from the participants coded K1 and K2, presented below, respectively, highlight these points:
“Our guests remind us of many things we forget. At the main meal, the guest criticizes. He can say it is very nice but not juicy. But we don't do this just by saying a guest. We collect it, we evaluate the item in which the number of complaints is higher than the number of guests.”
“We have five or six types of public relations. They ask guests one-on-one until the evening of the day. So what do you not like?... You went to the à la carte restaurant, did you not like the food, did you not like the soup, was it cold, hot or did you not like the taste? In other words, all public relations go around with them until the evening, they travel all their guests, that is their duty. They bring us complaints... We read surveys every day, we receive surveys from guests every day, it's a routine for one hour every morning... Today, 100 people came from the kitchen, three meals are cold and for example, red meat should be more or white meat should be more. he says okay."
It is understood that the chefs participating in this research tend to use qualitative methods focused on understanding guest satisfaction in analyzing menus. This point is also consistent with Kwong's (2005) finding that managers responsible for the menu do not use the formal menu analysis methods suggested by the related article. The finding obtained in this study regarding the observation of the residues on the plate is also considered worthy of discussion in terms of the current literature.
The menu analysis method based on the observation of the leftovers on the plate, which has a place in the hospital management literature, but which the researchers in the field of tourism management or restaurant management do not show academic interest and even not referred to in the compilation studies on menu analysis, has been identified as a method respected by the participant chefs.
There are two studies on this subject and they were conducted in hospitals. For example, Connors and Rozell (2004) state that by monitoring and analyzing the amount of residue in the dishes from patients, high and low consumption meals can be determined, and thus performance comparisons of menu items can be made and changes in the menu can be planned.
Kandiah et al. (2006) on the other hand, that the residue rate on the plate can be determined as the amount or percentage of the remaining food; he states that a determination can be made by making an estimation as a result of visual inspection, by weighing the plate, or by taking a photograph of it. Although it has not been questioned whether the chefs participating in the current research have knowledge about these two studies, it can be concluded that they observe the leftovers on the plates after the service, guided by their experience and intuition, in order to understand whether the guests are satisfied with the meals they serve.
From a theoretical point of view, the fact that a menu analysis method developed for hospitals in the relevant literature is currently used in hotel businesses may be useful in attracting the attention of researchers who are interested in menu analysis in the field of tourism and restaurant management.
After the participants analyze the menus with the methods they use in line with the criteria they have determined, they can apply one of the two main improvement strategies for the menu items that they find low performance. These strategies can be revision and removal from the menu. Below
As stated in the quote from the participant coded K12, some chefs may prefer revision over the alternative of removing it from the menu:
“I don't make changes very often. Rather than removing the menu item completely, I would make minor revisions to change it... According to the guest reaction...”
While the chefs are revising the menu items, they can change the presentation or the recipe of the food. Participants coded K6 and K7 convey their experiences about how they made these changes in the excerpts below:
“There was a famous Italian salad called Caesar salad on the menu... But certain guests had reactions. For example, they said that a Caesar salad should have this and that... What are we doing there? In Caesar salad, we are changing some products instead of being in a dilemma with the guest.”
“We can make changes to their presentation. But we don't like it afterwards, we can change it and make the same products as different presentations.”
Chefs may also resort to removing a menu item from the menu, which they find insufficient (especially in terms of guest satisfaction). Thus, the dish with poor performance is removed from the menu, but replaced with another dish that is believed to perform better. The following statements of the participant coded K6 also support this point:
“If one of the five main dishes has never moved or has received a complaint, remove it from the menu group immediately, and if another product from the same group is white, it is white, if it is red, it is from the red meat group, if it is fish, it is from the fish group, and if it is chicken, it is from the chicken group...”,
In the related literature, it is known that many strategies that require changes in the prices, costs and sales quantities of meals are suggested by Jones and Mifli (2001) and Kwong (2005). Therefore, the participating chefs benefit from fewer strategies compared to the recommendations in the literature. However, another point that should be emphasized is that the chefs did not consider removing low-performing dishes from the menu as a priority option. A similar finding was also revealed by Kwong's (2005) study. In this case, making revisions in the menu is considered as a priority improvement strategy.
Participants talk about two important features of the à la carte restaurants for which they are responsible for managing their menus. The first of these is that, unlike the open buffet restaurant, which is the main restaurant of the hotel, table service is offered in à la carte restaurants. According to the chefs, with table service, guests feel that they receive personalized service in à la carte restaurants, which can be associated with their satisfaction from their experience in these restaurants. The quote from the participant coded K1 below shows this:
“The other difference of a la carte is that everything is served to the guests without leaving the table. Guests come and sit in the à la carte restaurant, they feel a little more special, they are served a little more individually, personalized service is provided. If the ambiance and environment is nice, the guest feels a little more special, feels special service and is happier.”
Another feature of à la carte restaurants, which is considered important by the chefs, especially in connection with the menu, is that guests can make limited use of these restaurants. The participant with the code K8 uses the following statements regarding the limited right of use:
“A daily menu is given to every guest in the hotels. If the guest wants to use that right, he/she uses it only once from that menu. Therefore, since that guest did not come for the second time, he ate that meal once.”
The characteristics of a la carte restaurants can be effective on the menu analysis approaches of the chefs. Due to the limited usage rights of the guests, a guest can usually have the chance to dine at the à la carte restaurant once during the season. For this reason, it is not uncommon for guests to be exposed to the same menu repeatedly.
Thus, apart from receiving complaints during the season, the need to make changes in the menu is not felt much, for example, due to menu fatigue. On the other hand, due to both limited use and table service features, it is thought that guests who dine at à la carte restaurants feel special and therefore it becomes important to be satisfied. This last point can also be seen as an important reason why chefs attach high importance to guest satisfaction in à la carte restaurants.
Conclusion
This study was carried out in order to determine the opinions, experiences and practices of the kitchen chefs about menu analysis in the à la carte restaurants of hotel businesses and to obtain findings on the conceptual structure of menu analysis in practice. According to the main findings of the research, the chefs analyze the menus of the à la carte restaurants, with the emergence of the need to make changes in the menu at the beginning and during the season. Although cost and guest satisfaction are considered as the two main criteria in this analysis, it is understood that guest satisfaction is of higher priority.
The chefs evaluate the performance of the dishes on the menu by observing the leftovers on the plate and receiving constant feedback from the guests. According to these evaluations, it improves the performance of the menu by removing the dishes that they find insufficient performance from the menu or by making changes in the presentations or recipes of these dishes. The characteristics of à la carte restaurants (table service and limited usage rights) can also be influential in the chefs' approach to menu analysis.
It cannot be said that chefs examine each menu item one by one in terms of certain performance criteria, regularly collect data for each of them separately, analyze these data by combining them in a quantitative model, and make a performance evaluation based on these analyses. In short, the participating chefs do not show a formal approach to menu analysis.
Instead, it is understood that they evaluate the data they receive (via complaints, surveys or suggestions) or the data that they collect in a very unsystematic way (such as observing the plates) on the criteria they care about (guest satisfaction and cost), and thus they identify the menu items with insufficient performance. While doing all this, they rely on their experience and intuition.
It is also noteworthy that the chefs have an approach that can take into account the guest satisfaction variable, which the quantitative models in the literature cannot include in the analysis. These evaluations allow some suggestions to be made for both chefs and researchers.
Chefs may consider training themselves to use more formal methods of analysis. However, while doing this, it should not be considered that they completely abandon the existing menu analysis approaches. Instead, they can complement the qualitative approach they are applying with the quantitative models suggested by the literature.
Thus, they can develop a mixed approach based on both their own experience and intuition, the informal methods they apply (but considers qualitative criteria) and formal methods (which require systematically collecting and analyzing quantitative data). In this regard, they can also benefit from the advantage of being in a hotel.
They may also receive support from managers who are more prone to financial variables and analysis, such as accounting and finance managers and food and beverage managers. In addition, training chefs about models in the literature can also help them develop a menu analysis approach.
The findings of this study showed that researchers in the field of tourism and restaurant management should focus on models that take into account the needs of practitioners, as well as identify the deficiencies of the models in the literature and work on new models that will eliminate these deficiencies. For this, an increase should be made in the number of studies that determine the needs of practitioners, examine their practices and determine which performance criteria they want to evaluate.
Based on the findings of these studies, scientific and systematic model proposals focused on the needs of practitioners should be studied. In this context, for example, observing the residues on the plate should not remain as a method that can be used only in hospitals. Studies should be carried out on how to adapt it to the field of hotel and restaurant management.
This study has some limitations, especially due to the use of qualitative research approach. The use of purposive sampling method within the framework of the qualitative approach makes it impossible to generalize the findings. However, this study can be a first step for future studies on the needs and approaches of practitioners in menu analysis, and with this feature, it can at least guide the basic concepts that need to be investigated.
The texts analyzed by content analysis often consist of content that can have multiple meanings, and the analysis of these contents can be affected by the researcher's past experiences and skills in qualitative research. For this reason, in this study, content analysis was carried out by two researchers and discussions were made at almost every stage of the analysis process, and consensus was sought.
Another important limitation of the study is that the findings (five main categories and ten subcategories) may not reflect all the categories that actually exist in the analysis of the menus of à la carte restaurants in hotel businesses. Only chefs were included in the study as the persons responsible for the menus of the à la carte restaurants.
It is not known whether there will be a difference in the findings if interviews are conducted with other managers (general managers, food and beverage managers or restaurant chefs) who are responsible for the menu instead of the chefs. For this reason, expanding the sample to include different managers who are responsible for the menu in future studies will yield beneficial results.
Source
Bayou, M.E. and Bennett, LB (1992). Profitability Analysis for Table Service Restaurants, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 33 (2): 49-55.
Bölükoğlu, İ. (2000). Menu Engineering as an Analysis Tool in Food and Beverage Management, Dokuz Eylül University Faculty of Business Journal, 1 (1): 223-235.
Bölükoğlu, İ. and Türksoy, A. (2001). Recent Developments in Menu Engineering, One of the Methods Used in the Menu Analysis Process: A Model Considering the Labor Force, Dokuz Eylül University Journal of Social Sciences Institute, 3 (2): 22-36.
Chan, W. and Au, N. (1998). Profit Measurement of Menu Items,
The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,
39 (2): 70-75.
Cohen, E., Ghiselli, R., and Schwartz, Z. (2006). The Effect of Loss Leader Pricing on Restaurant Menus' Product Portfolio Analysis, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9 (1): 21-38.
Conners, PR and Rozell, SB (2004). Using a Visual Plate Waste Study to Monitor Menu Performance, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 104 (1): 94-96.
Caliskan, O. and Ozdemir, B. (2011). International Restaurant Management. In: I. Pırnar (Editor) International Tourism Management (pp. 251-282). Ankara: Nobel Academic Publishing.
Çetinsöz, BC and Ege, Z. (2012). Risk Reduction Strategies According to the Demographic Characteristics of Tourists: The Example of Alanya, Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research, 23 (2): 159-172.
Elo, S. and Kyngas, H. (2008). The Qualitative Content Analysis Process, Journal Advanced Nursing, 62 (1): 107-115.
Graneheim, UH and Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative Content Analysis in Nursing Reserach: Concepts, Procedures and Measures to Achieve Trustworthiness, Nurse Education Today, 24: 105-112.
Hall, CM and Valentin, A. (2005). Content Analysis. In: B. Ritchie P. Burns and C. Palmer (Editors) Tourism Research Methods: Integrating Theory With Practice (pp. 191-209). Cambridge: CAB International.
Harrington, RJ and Ottenbacher, MC (2013). Managing the Culinary Innovation Process: The Case of New Product Development, Journal of Culinary Science and Technology, 11: 4-18.
Hayes, DK and Huffman, L. (1995). Value Pricing: How Low Can You Go?, The Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly, 36 (1): 51-56.
Hsieh, HF and Shannon, S. (2005). Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis, Qualitative Health Research, 15: 1277–1288.
Jones, TA (2008). Improving Hotel Budgetary Practice–A Positive Theory Model, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 27: 529-540.
Jones, P. and Mifli, M. (2001). Menu Development and Analysis in UK Restaurant Chains, Tourism Hospitality Research, 3 (1): 61–71.
Kandiah, J., Stinnett, L., and Lutton, D. (2006). Visual Plate Waste in Hospitalized Patients: Length of Stay and Diet Order, Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 106 (10): 16631666.
Kasavana, ML and Smith, DJ (1982). Menu Engineering. Lansing, MI.: Hospitality Publications Inc.
Koşan, L. and Geçgin, E. (2013). Using Target Costing System in Menu Analysis: Application and Results in a Food and Beverage Business, Ç.Ü. Journal of the Social Sciences Institute, 22 (2): 391410.
Kwong, LYL (2005). The Application of Menu Engineering and Design in Asian Restaurants, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 24: 91-106.
LeBruto, S. Ashley, R. and Quain, W. (1995). Menu Engineering: A Model Including Labor, FUI Hospitality Review, 13 (1): 41-50.
Miller, JE (1980). Menu Pricing and Strategy. Boston: CBI Publications.
Morrison, P. (1997). Menu Engineering in Upscale Restaurants, British Food Journal, 99 (10): 388-395.
Ottenbacher, M. and Harrington, RJ (2007). The Innovation Development Process of Michelin-starred Chefs, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 19 (6): 444-460.
Ozdemir, M. (2010). Qualitative Data Analysis: A Study on the Methodological Problem in Social Sciences, Eskişehir Osmangazi University Journal of Social Sciences, 11 (1): 323-343.
Ozdemir, B. (2012). A Review On Menu Performance Investigation And Some Guiding Propositions, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 15 (4): 378-397.
Özdemir, B. and Caliskan, O. (2013). A Review of Literature on Restaurant Menus: Specifying The Managerial Issues, International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science, http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2013.12.001.
Pavesic, D.V. (1983). Cost-margin Analysis: A Third Approach to Menu Pricing and Design, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 2 (3): 127-134.
Raab, C. and Mayer, KJ (2003). Exploring the Use of Activity Based Costing in the Restaurant Industry, International Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Administration, 4 (2): 79-96.
Raab, C. Hertzman, J. Mayer, K. and Bell, D. (2006). Activity-Based Costing Menu Engineering: A New and More Accurate Way to Maximize Profits to Your Restaurant Menu, Journal of Foodservice Business Research, 9 (1): 77-96.
Reynolds, D. (2004). An Exploratory Investigation of Multiunit Restaurant Productivity Assessment Using Data Development Analysis, Journal of Travel and Tourism Marketing, 16 (2-3): 19-26.
Rizaoglu, B. (1991). Menu Analysis and Methods as a Management Tool, Tourism Yearbook 1991, Türkiye Gelişim Bankası A.Ş. Publication, Ankara: Rekmay Ltd.
Sarıışık, M. and Kaya, Ü. (2004). Gross Profit Analysis Method and Applications in Food and Beverage Businesses, Anatolia: Journal of Tourism Research, 15 (1): 62-70.
Sarıışık, M. and Özenler, G. (2004). The Importance of Menu Planning in Food and Beverage Businesses and the Issues That Managers Need to Pay Attention to in This Process: A Field Study in Kocaeli, Journal of Travel and Hotel Management, 1 (2): 40-47.
Saura, IG, Malina, MER and Gloria, BC (2008). Qualitative and Quantitative Engineering Criteria of Restaurant Wine Lists, Journal of Wine Research, 19 (1): 19-31.
Taylor, J. and Brown, DM (2007). Menu Analysis: A Review of Techniques and Approaches, FUI Hospitality Review, 25 (2): 74-82.
Taylor, J., Reynolds, D. and Brown, DM (2009). Multi-Factor Menu Analysis Using Data Envelopment Analysis, International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management, 21 (2): 213-225.
Uyar, A. and Bilgin, N. (2011). Budgeting Practices in the Turkish Hospitality Industry: An Exploratory Survey in the Antalya Region, International Journal of Hospitality Management, 30: 398-408.
As the head chef Ahmet ÖZDEMİR, I see the source:
Assoc. Dr. Bahattin ÖZDEMİR, Instructor See. I sincerely thank Oğuz NEBİOĞL for his academic studies titled "How is Menu Analysis Performed in Practice? Opinions of Chefs of Five Star Hotels" and wish him success in his professional life. It will definitely be considered as an example by those who need it in professional kitchens and the gastronomy and culinary community.